Christology

This page was generated automatically upon download from the Globethics Library.
More information on Globethics see https://www.globethics.net. Data and content
policy of Globethics Library repository see https://repository.globethics.net/pages/
policy

Item Type Book

Authors George, Samuel

Publisher SCEPTRE

Rights With permission of the license/copyright holder

Download date 11/03/2024 06:11:06

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/220581

BD/BCS Study Material: Theology For private circulation only

CHRISTOLOGY

Samuel George
CHRISTOLOGY
Samuel George

FOREWORD

For many years theological education has been done within the well-
© SCEPTRE, 2013 protected campus with the primary objective of training pastors.
Reprint - 2014 Theological Education by Extension (TEE) is an attempt to do theology
beyond campus. The vision of TEE is not confined to ministerial training
programme of the churches alone; rather is involves equipping the whole
people of God; it is for the Laos– the whole people of God. It seeks to
empower the whole people of God for formation and transformation of
the whole community and search to build a just and inclusive community
in the context of the people of other faiths and to all people. Thus, the
Cover Design theological education by extension programme is meant to strengthen
Debabani Basu building an inclusive community. Those who go through the process of
such education will be able to work not only “for” the people, but also
“together with the people”.
To aid external candidates in their studies, the production of study
materials was under consideration for a long time. We are happy that
the resource materials are ready and I am sure this will greatly benefit
the BD/BCS candidates especially those who do not have access to
library facility. We record our appreciation to Rev. Samuel George,
Principal of Master’s College of Theology, Vizag, A.P. for preparing,
Christology. We thank EMW,Germany, for journeying with us in
strengthening theological education and making the resources available
for the production of study materials.

Wati Longchar
Composed & Printed by Dean
ESPACE Kolkata
74B, A.J.C. Bose Road July, 2013
Kolkata 700 016
Phone : (033)65351127
e-mail: espace_design@ymail.com
website: www.espaceindia.in
 Table of Content
Foreword iii
Chapter I: Person and Work of Jesus, the Christ 1-3
1.1. Terminological Clarifications
1.1.1. Christology
1.1.2. Jesusology
1.1.3. Historical Jesus/Jesus of history
1.1.4. Christ of faith

Chapter II: Jesus in His Own Context 4-11

2.1. Social/Cultural World of Jesus
2.2. Political Context of Jesus
2.2.1. Pontius Pilate
2.2.2. Herod ‘the Great’
2.2.3. Herod Antipas
2.3. Religious Context of Jesus
2.3.1. High Priest
2.3.2. Scribes
2.3.3. Pharisees
2.3.4. Sadducees
2.3.5. Essenes
2.3.6. Zealots
2.4. Economic Context of Jesus

Chapter III: New Testament Titles of Jesus 5-16

3.1. Christos/Mashiach (Christ/Messiah)
3.1.1. Old Testament
3.1.2. In the Gospels
3.2. Son of God
3.3. Son of David
3.4. Son of Man
3.5. Lord
Chapter IV: Christological Debates during the Patristic Period 17-35 8.1.1. The Work of Christ
4.1. Classical Affirmations of the Person of Jesus Christ 8.2. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s Christology
4.1.1. Jesus is Fully Human 8.2.1. ‘Christ the Satyagrahi’
4.1.2. Jesus is Fully Divine. 8.3. Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya’s Christology
4.1.3. Mystery of the Unity of His Person. 8.3.1. Person of Jesus Christ
4.2. Irenaeus 8.3.2. Work of Christ
4.3. Clement of Alexandria 8.3.3. Incarnation or Avatâra?
4.3.1. Spirit’s Christology 8.4. Vengal Chakkarai’s Christology
4.4. Origen of Alexandria 8.5. Aiyarudai Jesudasan Appasamy’s Christology
4.5. Arius 8.6. Pandipeddi Chenchiah’s Christology
4.6. Athanasius of Alexandria 8.7. Paul David Devanandan’s Christology
4.7. Council of Nicaea 325 8.8. M. M. Thomas’ Christology
4.8. Apollinarius of Laodicea 8.9. Sebastian Kappen’s Christology
4.9. Cappadocian Fathers 8.10. Kalagara Subba Rao’s Christology
4.10. Ephesus 431 8.11. Christology from a Dalit Perspective
4.11. Towards Chalcedon 451 8.11.1. Dalit Theology
4.12. Council of Chalcedon 451 8.11.2. Dalit Christology
8.12. Christology from Tribal (North-East India) Perspective
Chapter V: Mediaeval and Reformation Christologies 36-43 8.12.1. Tribal Theology
8.12.2. Tribal Christology
5.1. Thomas Aquinas
8.12.2.1.Rooster Sacrifice for Human Protection
5.2. Martin Luther
8.12.2.2.Jesus and the Rooster
5.3. John Calvin
8.12.2.3.Jesus, the Elder Brother
8.12.2.4.Jesus, the Ancestor
Chapter VI: Doctrine of Atonement 44-46
8.13. Christology from Adivasi Perspective
6.1. Theories of Atonement 8.13.1. Adivasi Theology
6.1.1. Satisfaction/Juridical theory 8.13.2. Jesus, the Parmadivasi
6.1.2. Penal Substitution theory
6.1.3. Subject View/Moral Influence theory Chapter IX: Emerging Christologies from the Margins 95-106
9.1. Latin American Liberation Context
Chapter VII: Western Christologies 47-59
9.1.1. A Christology of Liberation
7.1. Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher 9.2. Christology from the Afro-American/Black Context
7.2. Karl Barth 9.3. Black Christ
7.3. Albert Schweitzer 9.4. Womanist/Feminist Theology
7.4. Rudolf Karl Bultmann 9.4.1. Christologies of Women of Colour
7.5. Paul Johannes Tillich 9.5. Minjung Christology
7.5.1. Jesus, the Christ, the New Being 9.6. Jesus the Environmentalist (Eco-theology and Christology)
7.6. Wolfhart Pannenberg
Bibliography 107-119
Chapter VIII: Christological Reflections from India 60-94
8.1. Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s Christology
 Person and Work of Jesus the Christ 1

CHAPTER I

Person and Work of Jesus the Christ

Jesus Christ is one of the most intriguing personalities that the world
has ever known. His question to his disciples, “Who do you say that I
am?” (Mk. 8:27-29 also Matt. 16:13-20) has reverberated down the
centuries and have continually attracted varieties of responses.
Schweitzer has rightly pointed out, “These diverse Christologies add
new voices to the conversation about Jesus, his saving significance,
and the meaning of life that has been on-going since his ministry began.
Each of these new voices is worth listening to.”1 Here in this monograph
an attempt is being made towards a historical-theological survey of the
Christological formulations. The endeavour here is put these into a text-
book form for the students who are studying the course “Person and
Work of Jesus the Christ.”

Terminological clarifications
Christology
Christian reflection, teaching, and doctrine concerning Jesus of Nazareth.
Christology is the part of theology that is concerned with the nature and
work of Jesus, incl uding such ma tters as the Incar na tion, the
Resurrection, and his human and divine natures and their relationship.2
Christology is that part of theology which deals with Our Lord Jesus
Christ.3 Christology (from Greek Khristós and -ëïãßá, -logia) is the field of
study within Christian theology which is primarily concerned with the
nature and person of Jesus Christ as recorded in the canonical Gospels
and the epistles of the New Testament.4

Jesusology
The terms Jesusology/Jesuology are used pejoratively because they
suggest a reduction of the significance of Jesus Christ to what can be
determined on immanent grounds by an historical method.5 Schubert M.
Ogden popularized this term. By it he means a constructive answer to
2 Christology Person and Work of Jesus the Christ 3

the question of how God can be affirmed to have been fully incarnate in Pluralistic Age’,” Process Studies 6, no. 2 (Summer 1976): 116-22.
7
Jesus.6 It is a systematic study of the existence, nature, and teachings of Jon Sobrino, Jesus the Liberator. A Historical-Theological View (Maryknoll,
New York: Orbis Books, 2004), 50.
Jesus, and his influence and relationship to human beings. 8
N. T. Wright, “No, we need history,” Christianity Today 54, no. 4 (2010): 27.
Historical Jesus/Jesus of history
The name “Jesus” in this essay refers to the figure, who was born, lived
and died within human history nearly 2000 years ago. At times, this
figure will also be referred to as ‘the historical Jesus’ or ‘Jesus of Nazareth’
by which we mean the life of Jesus, his words and actions, his activity
and his praxis, his attitudes and his spirit, his fate on the cross and the
resurrection. It is the history of Jesus.7 Wright writes,
[T]he words history and historical can refer to two different things:
(a) past event, or (b) what people write about past events. Most
people assume the former … that [which] actually happened,
not historians’ reconstructions …. [Any suggestion] that ‘historical
Jesus’ must only mean (b), I doubt that this will catch on. Yes,
that’s how many scholars use it, but not all. English usage
allows, nay, encourages, sense (a).8
For our purpose ‘Jesus of history’ and ‘historical Jesus’ are used
interchangeably.

Christ of faith
The Christ of faith is what was taught about Jesus after his crucifixion
and resurrection – the post-Easter Jesus. The emphasis is more on the
divinity and lordship of Jesus. As the early church grew, so did their
“beliefs” about Jesus. The beliefs replaced the historical facts. It was in
1892, that Martin Kähler tried to distinguish between the historical Jesus,
or the Jesus of Historie (history), and the Christ whom the church
proclaimed in its Gospels, or the Christ of Geschichte (meta-history/
salvation history).

End Notes
1
Don Schweitzer, Contemporary Christologies: A Fortress Introduction
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2010), vii.
2
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/115761/Christology (accessed
November 11, 2012).
3
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm (accessed November 11,
2012).
4
Gerald O’Collins, Christology. A Biblical, Historical and Systematic Study of
Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 1ff.
5
Roger Haight, An Alternative Vision: An Interpretation of Liberation Theology
(New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1985), 314 f. n. 14.
6
Schubert M. Ogden, “Christology Reconsidered: John Cobb’s ‘Christ in a
4 Christology
CHAPTER II
Jesus in His Own Context
Why is it important? What would it contribute towards the understanding
of Jesus? are some of the questions that one encounter when one is
studying Christology. It is the context that makes a person. So is it in the
case of Jesus Christ. In this chapter, an attempt is made to know the
context in which Jesus was born, lived and ministered.
Social/Cultural World of Jesus
Nazareth and its surrounding areas were populated mostly by Jews,
but also some Syrians, Greeks, and Romans. Jerusalem, which was
more cosmopolitan had greater ethnic diversity. The common language
in the Roman Empire was Greek. However, the everyday market
language was Aramaic. Hebrew and Latin too was used. People at the
time of Jesus were mostly of rural and agrarian background. In a typical
Jewish village, the synagogue was a central meeting place, and the
seat of the local Jewish government. Houses were built with mud and
kiln bricks. Usually these had 1-2 room squares, with dirt floors, flat
roofs, low and narrow doorways, and front wooden doors. Often people
would sleep on flat roofs during hot nights. The houses were arranged
around a central shared courtyard where neighbours performed daily
chores (cooking, laundry, etc.) in each other’s company. Water was
carried in from a public well and stored in a courtyard cistern. Lighting
was provided by earthenware oil lamps. People slept on mats, and
owned limited personal goods. Food was prepared by women. Two meals
were typically served: Breakfast – light or small amounts of food taken to
work; and Dinner – A large meal with cheese, wine, vegetables and
fruits, and eggs. Fish, beef, and lamb were common non-veg food items.
They also ate dates, grapes and other fruits. The inhabitants wore clothes
that were typical of the middle-eastern context. The undergarment was
called a tunic and the outer garment a mantle – it was loose fitting with
fringes, bound by blue ribbon. Men wore a belt – a wide leather belt or
cloth girdle. People also wore sandals on their feet, and a white cloth
Jesus in His Own Context 5
over their head, hanging to their shoulders for protection from the sun.
Family structure was patriarchal. The husband or the Father was the
spiritual and legal head of the house. He was responsible for feeding,
sheltering and protecting the family. Children were instructed early to
honour their parents. A Jewish family lived by very strict moral, social
and religious rules. It was a joint-family that consisted of parents,
unmarried children, married sons and their spouses. They would often
all live under one roof. Women were considered second-class citizens,
akin to slaves. Women as followers of religious/social leaders were very
unusual. The fact that they are mentioned as avid followers of Jesus is
nothing short of a revolution that Jesus created. Jesus’ family comes
from a middle class society. His father, Joseph was a carpenter. His
mother Mary, was betrothed to Joseph, however before the marriage
she was found to be pregnant. After Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary
had other children (cf. Matt. 12:46-47, 13:55-56; Mk. 3:31-32, 6:3; Lk.
8:19-20).
Political Context of Jesus
Christianity was born in Palestine, a small stretch of land on the eastern
Mediterranean Sea. The Jews considered Palestine their Promised
Land, but because of its desirable location it had been ruled by a
succession of foreign powers for most of its history. Egypt and Assyria
fought over it for centuries, and then Babylon conquered Assyria and
Palestine with it. Next came the Persians led by Cyrus, who allowed the
Jews to return to Palestine from exile, then the Greeks under Alexander
the Great around 400 BCE. Rome took Jerusalem in 63 BCE, and
Palestine was still under Roman rule at the time of Jesus’ birth. In the
hierarchy of power, the Jewish self-government reported to the authority
of the local Roman government (King Herod), which reported to Rome
(Emperor Caesar).
The Pax Romana initiated by Caesar Augustus quelled crime,
allowed for the development of roads throughout the Empire, and gave
citizens the leisure to think about religious matters. It is in the fifteenth
year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (42 BCE – 37 CE),1 the second
emperor of Rome that Jesus was probably born.2 Some of the important
political leaders during the time of Jesus were:
1) Pontius Pilate
Pontios Pîlâtos was the fifth Roman Prefect/governor of Judea.3 He
served under Emperor Tiberius. Little is known about him until an
inscription on a limestone block known as the Pilate Stone — a
6 Christology Jesus in His Own Context 7

dedication to Tiberius Caesar Augustus — that was discovered in 1961
in the ruins of an amphitheatre at Caesarea Maritima refers to Pilate as
“Prefect of Judaea.”
The prefects’ primary functions were military, but as representatives
of the empire they were responsible for the collection of imperial taxes,
and also had limited judicial functions. They also had some civil and
religious authority. He had the power to appoint Jewish High Priests. In
all probability he resided in Caesarea but travelled throughout the
province, especially to Jerusalem, in the course of performing his duties.
He had around 3000 Roman soldiers under his direct command.
According to the canonical gospels Pilate presided over the trial of
Jesus. His name will be forever covered with infamy because of the part
which he took in this matter, though at the time it appeared to him of
small importance.4 Philo (Ad Gaium, 38) speaks of him as inflexible,
merciless, and obstinate. The Jews hated him and his administration,
for he was not only very severe, but showed little consideration for their
susceptibilities.5
In all four gospel accounts, Pilate avoids responsibility for the death
of Jesus.6 His efforts to acquit Christ, and thus pass as lenient a judgment
as possible upon his crime, goes further in the apocryphal Gospels and
led in later years to the claim that he actually became a Christian. The
Abyssinian Church reckons him as a saint, and assigns 25 June to him
and to Claudia Procula, his wife. The belief that she became a Christian
goes back to the second century, and may be found in Origen. The
Greek Church assigns her a feast on 27 October. Tertullian and Justin
Martyr both speak of a report on the Crucifixion (not extant) sent in by
Pilate to Tiberius, from which idea a large amount of apocryphal literature
originated. Some of these were Christian in origin (Gospel of Nicodemus),
others came from the heathen, but these have all perished.7
Not much is known about his life after the crucifixion of Jesus except
that his rule came to end when the Samaritans revolted and he was
summoned to Rome for explanation.
2) Herod ‘the Great’ (73/74 BCE - 4 CE)
The death of Herod is important in its relation to the birth of Christ.
Jesus was born before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:1), but how long before is
uncertain.
3). Herod Antipas (20 BCE - 39 CE)
He was the son of Herod ‘the Great.’ After the death of his father he
became the ruler of Galilee. Herod was first married to a daughter of
King Aretas of Arabia; then he took Herodias, his half-brother Philip’s
wife, as his own wife. The New Testament Gospels state that John attacked
the tetrarch’s marriage as contrary to Jewish law, while Josephus says
that John’s public influence made him fearful of rebellion.9 John was
imprisoned in Machaerus and executed. According to Matthew and Mark,
Herod was reluctant to order John’s death but was compelled by
Herodias’ daughter (traditionally Salome), to whom he had promised
any reward she chose as a result of her dancing for guests at his birthday
banquet.10
According to Matthew and Mark, he feared the ministry of Jesus as
he thought that the Baptizer had been raised from the dead. 11 Luke
alone among the Gospels states that a group of Pharisees warned
Jesus that Antipas was plotting his death, whereupon Jesus denounced
the tetrarch as a “fox” and declared that he, Jesus, would not fall victim
to such a plot because “it is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside
of Jerusalem.”12 Luke also credits the tetrarch with a role in Jesus’ trial.
According to Luke, Pilate, on learning that Jesus was a Galilean and
therefore under Herod’s jurisdiction, sent him to Antipas, who was also
in Jerusalem at the time. Initially, Antipas was pleased to see Jesus,
hoping to see him perform a miracle, but when Jesus remained silent in
the face of questioning Antipas mocked him and sent him back to Pilate.
Luke says that these events improved relations between Pilate and
Herod despite their earlier enmity.13 However, there are some today
who would argue that Jesus’ trial by Herod Antipas is unhistorical.14
About his later life and rule we know that he fell in favour with Rome
and was banished probably to Gaul with his wife Herodias, where he
later died.

He was the Roman client king of Judea when Jesus was born. According Religious Context of Jesus
to Josephus, he ruled for 37 years. He is known for his building/expansion
The Jewish people were monotheistic whereas the surrounding cultures
of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Herod the Great appears in the
were mostly polytheistic. The Sabbath Day was a very important part of
Gospel according to Matthew (Ch. 2), which describes an event known
Jewish religious life. It was considered to be a day of rest and worship.
as the Massacre of the Innocents. No other known source from the
Another major religious function of the Jewish year was the Passover
period makes any reference to such a massacre.8 Many modern
feast celebrating the deliverance of the Jewish people from their slavery
biographers of Herod doubt whether the massacre took place.
8 Christology
in Egypt. Many Jews would travel to Jerusalem in order to celebrate in
the holy city. Jesus and his disciples too had their last supper during this
time. As a religious community, Jewish society had few important religious
leaders:
1) High Priest
Two prominent religious figures were Annas and Caiaphas. Annas was
the father-in-law of Caiaphas, and although Caiaphas was the official
high priest of Israel, Annas who had been the former high priest still
held power and authority. It was Caiaphas who tore his clothes and
declared Jesus worthy of death.
2) Scribes
“Scribes” (basically means students of the scriptures) were important
religious leaders too. They were men whose primary occupation was
writing out copies of the Jewish Scriptures and teaching the people
what the law said. During the time of Jesus they were the law keepers –
the teachers (Rabbi) of the law. They were, also trusted as lawyers
within Jewish society. Since they interpreted the law, they gained lot of
respect among the Jewish community. Interesting to note that the scribes
were some of Jesus’ most adamant opponents. For them Jesus did not
match up with the Messiah of the Old Testament.
3) Pharisees
The Pharisees were religious leaders who were known for their religious
orthodoxy and strict observance of the Jewish laws, ceremonies and
traditions. There were around 6,000 Pharisees during Jesus’ time on
earth. They were leaders in the local synagogue.
The Pharisees openly opposed Jesus. They were particularly
appalled at his acts of healing people on the Sabbath and his blatant
claims to divinity.
Jesus denounced them as being hypocrites. They often lived moral
lives, full of good deeds, but it was all outward actions with no thought
given to the heart or motives of the actions. However, Jesus indeed took
notice of their pursuit of righteousness. He said, “For I tell you, unless
your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will
never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20).
4) Sadducees
The Sadducees were Jewish religious leaders who were primarily from
the upper-class, were much more sympathetic to the Romans and sought
Jesus in His Own Context 9
to maintain their aristocratic positions in society. They often disagreed
with the Pharisees because the Sadducees rejected the oral traditions
and much of the doctrine of the Pharisees especially resurrection of the
dead.
The Sadducees were opposed to Jesus because there was the
supposed threat that Jesus could potentially overthrow the Roman
government, thus jeopardizing their positions of prestige. Sadducees
lived primarily in Jerusalem and their lives were often focused around
the happenings of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem.
The Sanhedrin (the judicial council of the Jewish people) was
comprised primarily of Sadducees.
5) Essenes
Essenes were members of a religious sect or brotherhood that flourished
in Palestine between 2nd century BCE and 1st century CE. Ironically, the
New Testament does not mention them. The Essenes clustered in
monastic communities that, generally at least, excluded women. Property
was held in common and all details of daily life were regulated by officials.
The Essenes were never numerous; Pliny puts their number at some
4,000 in his day.15 Like the Pharisees, the Essenes meticulously observed
the Law of Moses, the Sabbath, and ritual purity. They also professed
belief in immortality and divine punishment for sin. But, unlike the
Pharisees, the Essenes denied the resurrection of the body and refused
to immerse themselves in public life. With few exceptions, they shunned
Temple worship and were content to live ascetic lives of manual labour
in seclusion. The Sabbath was reserved for day-long prayer and
meditation on the Torah (first five books of the Bible). Oaths were frowned
upon, but once taken they could not be rescinded. Qualified members
were called upon to swear piety to God, justice towards others, hatred of
falsehood, love of truth, and faithful observance of all other tenets of the
Essene sect. It is today accepted that the Qumrân community was
Essenian.
6) Zealots
They were member of a Jewish sect known for its uncompromising
opposition to pagan Rome and the polytheism it professed. They were
an aggressive political party whose concern for the national and religious
life of the Jewish people led them to despise even Jews who sought
peace and conciliation with the Roman authorities. Extremists among
the Zealots turned to terrorism and assassination and became known
as Sicarii (Greek sikarioi, “dagger men”). They frequented public places
10 Christology Jesus in His Own Context 11

8
with hidden daggers to strike down persons friendly to Rome. In the first E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin Press,
revolt against Rome (66–70 CE) the Zealots played a leading role, and 1995), 87-88.
9
Matthew. 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-18; Luke 3:19.
at Masada in 73 CE they committed suicide rather than surrender the 10
Matthew 14:6-11; Mark 6:19-28.
fortress. Interestingly one of Jesus’ disciples is called Simon the Zealot.16 11
Matthew 14:1-2; Mark 6:14-16; cf. Luke 9:7-9.
12
Luke 13:31-33.
Economic Context of Jesus 13
Luke 23:5-12.
14
Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible
There were interregional movement and trade as well as a thriving
(London: Viking, 1991), 297.
export industry especially of Galilean wares. The political realities and 15
“Essenes”, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/193097/Essene
the material remains make free movement between Jews and Gentiles (accessed June 16, 2013).
in the north quite plausible for the period of Jesus’ life.17 It was the time 16
Today many would suggest that Simon was not part of this Jewish sect
of rise of monetary economy rather than barter system. because it came into existence late. Cf. Robert Eisenman, James the Brother
of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the
Heavy taxes were levied by Herod Antipas. His personal allowance Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Viking Penguin, 1997), 33-4; John P. Meier,
was 200 talents (around 444,000 bushels of wheat). This was collected Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday and
as a land tax. More taxes were collected if any public projects were built. Co., 1991), 132-35.
17
In addition to this, there were also customs, tolls, and sales taxes on Michael J. McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth
(Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
goods transported from one district to another. Company, 2004), 48.
18
Peasants had a dreadful time in Galilee and Judea. Farming during Ibid., 49.
19
the period of Jesus was basically of a subsistence character and did not Frederick C. Grant, The Economic Background of the Gospels (New York:
Russell & Russell, 1973 [1926]), 105.
provide for surpluses from year to year.18 20
Marcus J. Borg, Jesus: A Psychological Biography (St. Louis: Chalice Press,
Under the foreign rule the Jews of Palestine were saddled with a 2000), 85.
21
double burden – Roman taxes and the Jewish tithe (matter of divine law A spontaneous outburst of resentment against the ruling class.
22
Sean Freyne, “The Geography, Politics, and Economics of Galilee and the
therefore, mandatory). Probably the combined level of Jewish and Roman
Quest for the Historical Jesus,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations
taxes may have reached as high as 35 percent, which would have been of the State of Current Research, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans
a crushing burden within a subsistence economy.19 Probably the double (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 95.
tax burden helped to swell the ranks of non-observant Jews.20
Social banditry21 was endemic in the whole of Palestine. Freyne
suggests that the threatened agricultural strike would seem to indicate
that banditry was the direct outcome of scarcity in production and an
inability to pay tribute.22

End Notes
1
He ruled from 14-37 CE as the emperor of Rome.
2
Cf. Luke 3:1.
3
He ruled Judea from 26-36 CE.
4
Catholic Encylopedia, “Pontius Pilate” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
12083c.htm (accessed November 11, 2012).
5
The incident of Pilate mixing the blood of some Galileans with their sacrifice
shows the cruel nature of the man (Luke 13:1).
6
Cf. Stephen L. Harris, Understanding the Bible, Eighth ed. (Colombus:
McGraw-Hill Companies, 2010).
7
Encylopedia, “Pontius Pilate”.
12 Christology
CHAPTER III
New Testament Titles of Jesus
It is to the Bible one turns to know more about the person and work of
Jesus the Christ. And there is a plurality of images/metaphors of Jesus
in the Bible. Here an attempt is made to understand these New Testament
titles of Jesus.
Christos/Mashiach (Christ/Messiah)
The word literally means – ‘anointed one.’ It had no special religious
meaning in the Greek culture, however in the Old Testament it had a
special religious connotation.
Old Testament
Anointment with oil was a way of setting apart people for fulfilling the
divinely ordained office in the theocracy. Three offices were anointed:
priests (Lev. 4:3; 6:22), kings (I Sam. 24:10; II Sam. 19:21; 23:1; Lam.
4:20), and prophets (I Kings 19:16). This anointing indicated divine
appointment to the theocractic office concerned and therefore indicated
that by virtue of the unction the anointed persons belonged to a special
circle of the servants of God and that their persons were sacred and
inviolable (I Chron. 16:22).1 The most outstanding messianic use of
Messiah is found in the Old Testament in Psalm 2:2. The coming king is
both God’s Son and the anointed one who will rule on behalf of God and
over all the earth.
The most notable Old Testament messianic prophecies are found
in Isaiah 9 and 11. He is notably not called the messiah but he is a king
of David’s line who will be supernaturally endowed and will purge the
earth of wickedness, and reign with justice (cf. 11:4).
In the Gospels
The messianic expectation (carried on from the Judaic tradition) was
quite rampant among the people during Jesus’ time (Jn. 1:20, 41; 4:29;
New Testament Titles of Jesus 13
7:31; Lk. 3:15). He was to be a son of David (Mt. 21:9; 22:42), and while
he would be born in Bethlehem (Jn. 7:40-42; Mt. 2:5), there was a tradition
that he would suddenly appear among the people from an obscure
origin (Jn. 7:26-27). When the messiah appeared, he would remain
forever (Jn. 12:34).2
The visit by the Magi at his birth is interpreted in a similar fashion.
Herod was alarmed (cf. Mt. 2:1-18). The Pharisees, scribes, and leaders
of Jerusalem interpreted the popularity of Jesus in terms of political
messianism. They thought it would stir up a movement that would disturb
the tranquillity of the Roman Empire and it would be crushed (Jn. 11:47-
48). A mighty leader who would overthrow Rome is precisely what the
people desired of their messiah.3 At the zenith of his popularity, his
followers thought of him in similar fashion (cf. Jn. 6:15). Ladd rightly
says,
Had it been Jesus’ purpose to offer to the Jews such an earthly,
political Davidic kingdom, they would have accepted it on the
spot and have been willing to follow him to death if need be to see
the inauguration of such a kingdom. However, when Jesus
refused this and indicated that his mission was of an entirely
different character and this his Kingdom was to be a spiritual
Kingdom in which men [sic] were to eat his flesh and drink his
blood, the crowds turned against him and his popularity waned
(Jn. 6:66). The wanted a king to deliver them from Rome, not a
saviour to redeem them from their sins. 4
At his trial too Jesus was accused of being a political messiah (Lk. 23:2)
by the Jewish leaders. However, the Roman rulers found it very amusing
because he looked anything but a threat to the Roman rule. They called
him “the so-called Christ” (Mt. 27:17, 22). On the cross, the scribes, and
priests mocked him as the king of Israel (Mk. 15:32).
The word Christos was used mostly as a title not as a proper name.
Even the disciples never addressed Jesus as the messiah. He made no
overt claim to be Messiah, yet he did not reject messiahship when it was
attributed to him; and before the Sanhedrin, when directly accused of
claiming messiahship, he assented, but gave his own definition to the
term. He claimed himself to be a heavenly Messiah. He is the King of
Peace.
Christos is used 530 times in the New Testament. 383 times it is in
Pauline writings.5 Christ is Paul’s favourite title for Jesus and it also
points to the fact that it became in an important vocabulary during the
early Christianity. For Paul, it is both a name and a title: Christ Jesus,
Jesus Christ, and the Lord Jesus Christ – Rom. 9:5. He connects Christ
to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus the Christ (Rom. 6:6-7; 1 Cor.
14 Christology
15; Gal. 3:13).
It was a political title – a political liberator. Jesus did not identify
himself with the political expectations of his followers. William Wrede,
calls it “messianic secret” because Jesus never allowed his followers to
describe him Messiah. Victorious Messiah was the people’s expectation;
the crucified Messiah was a stumbling block (1 Cor. 1:23). Jesus is the
Messiah but not in the mode of a political liberator or like the Zealots or
other nationalistic leaders.
1 Pet. 1:11 – connects Christ with suffering. Therefore, early
Christians understood crucifixion as a messianic event.
Why is this title important?
• To relate Jesus to Israel as the fulfilment of the classic Jewish
expectations.
• To show the continuity between Christianity and Judaism.
• For a better Jewish-Christian relation today.
Son of God
To think the title ‘Son of God’ referring to the divinity of Jesus the Christ
and ‘Son of Man’ to the humanity are exegetically inaccurate.
In the Old Testament it can mean - “belonging to God.” Israel as the
people of God (Exo. 4:22), Davidic dynasty that were to rule (2 Sam.
7:14) were called son of God. The concept of sonship carries various
meanings: commissioning to special work, obedience, intimate
fellowship, knowledge, likeness, receiving of blessing and gifts. Old
Testament doesn’t point to a messianic figure who is accorded with the
title Son of God.
It is used 124 times in the New Testament, mostly in Pauline literature
and Hebrews. Paul declares that Jesus is “Son of God” on account of his
resurrection (Rom. 1:4).
Jesus used it rarely, but the gospel writers argue that he was sure of
his divine sonship and he saw his mission from that perspective (Mat.
11:27; Mk. 12:6; 13:32; Lk. 10:22). His sonship can be explained in the
following three propositions:
• He claimed personal intimacy with the Father – used abba
(Aramaic ‘daddy’) (Mk. 13:36).
• Obedient to the will of God (Mk. 36).
• Uniqueness of his status. Paul uses two distinct Greek words
tekna – children; huios – Son.
New Testament Titles of Jesus 15
Some feminist theologians have raised concern about the sexist
usage of Son. Son was a cultural usage of the time. Only a Son could
inherit the rights. Therefore, the exclusive language is retained.
From the Christological perspective this title is an important one for
the following reasons:
• It points towards the human-God relationship.
• Filial relationship between the Father and the Son.
Son of David
The Old Testament looked forward to a king who would be from the line
of David (Jer. 23:5; 33:15). In post-Christian Judaism, “Son of David”
occurs frequently as a title of the Messiah. Matthew on several occasions
recognizes Jesus as the Son of David (Mt. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30).
Since his targeted audience were the Jews so the relevance of the title
Son of David. Mark uses only once (10:47). Romans 1:3 clearly states
that he was “descended from David according to the flesh.” In the
controversy (Mk. 12:35-37), Jesus is accusing the scribal experts of an
inadequate understanding of the Messiah. He is indeed David’s Son;
but this is not enough. David wrote, “The Lord said to my Lord [the
messianic King], sit at my right hand.” How can the Messiah be David’s
Son if he is also David’s Lord? It is here we see his position on messianic
secret. His supernatural origin is made visible here.
As a Christological title, Son of David points to Jesus as the royal
Messiah in the line of David. Jesus, in his person and ministry, fulfils the
promises of God given to the Davidic dynasty. However, it is perfectly
evident that he refused to be a political king. He was the Suffering Servant.
Son of David as a title for Jesus is used only eleven times in the New
Testament.
Son of Man
Theologically it is a very significant title. Three important aspects of the
title:
1. Son of Man was Jesus’ favourite way of designating himself. It
is the only title he freely used.
2. The title is never used by anyone other than Jesus.
3. There is no evidence in Acts or the epistles that the early church
called Jesus the Son of Man.
Around 65 times the title is found in the gospels. Surprisingly, it never
became an important title for Jesus even though Jesus preferred it. The
16 Christology

early church Fathers referred it to portray the humanity of Jesus. They

were not fully correct in doing so.

Lord
Septuagint uses kyrios for God in the Old Testament. It became the early
Christian confession - ‘Jesus is Lord’ (Rom. 10:9). Jewish historian
Josephus mentions that the Jews refused to call the emperor Lord.
Paul uses it without any particular explanation, assuming that his
readers are familiar with it. Paul equates Jesus as the Lord to the Old
Testament Yahweh (Rom. 10:13; Joel 2:32). He uses it in formula form:
Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 1:4), “our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1),
“the Lord Jesus” (Rom. 14:14). Rom. 14:6 portrays Jesus as the Lord – a
designation.
It is a context specific title. Paul uses it in different contexts: to
encourage and admonish believers (Rom. 14:1-12), in eschatological
passages (1 Thess. 4:15-17), and in liturgical contexts that highlight the
worship life (1 Cor. 11:20).

End Notes
1
George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 136.
2
Ibid., 139.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid., 139-40.
5
270 times in the authentic letters of Paul: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonian, Philemon.
 Christological Debates During the Patristic Period 17

CHAPTER IV

Christological Debates During

the Patristic Period

Classical Affirmations of the Person of Jesus Christ

Jesus is fully human
New Testament portrays Jesus as a concrete human being in no
uncertain terms except in doing sin (alienation from and hostility to the
grace of God). He was limited and finite and did everything. As a first
century Jew, he was influenced by his surroundings especially by the
culture and religious heritage of his people. He grew and matured
physically, intellectually, spiritually. He was an itinerant preacher with
no home. He experienced hunger, thirst. He was pained at the loss of
dear ones. He was tempted. He was rejected, insulted, betrayed,
humiliated, tortured and finally crucified.
His real humanity is rejection of Docetists who were embarrassed
by it. Docetism comes from the Greek word dokeô, ‘to seem’ or ‘to appear.’
According to them, Christ was fully divine, but his humanity was merely
an appearance. He did not really suffer or die. Some even contended
that Jesus never left footprints and never blinked his eyes. Docetism
was related to Gnosticism. Gnosticism created a dualism between matter
and spirit. It regarded spirit as higher and purer part of creation whereas
matter represented frailty and even sinfulness. Gregory of Nazianzus
said, “That which he has not assumed, he has not healed.”1 If he is not
fully human then what he said and did cannot be saving event for us. We
remain then without deliverance and without hope. His fully humanity is
the precondition of the inclusiveness of his salvation.2
Jesus’ humanity is a new humanity. Migliore writes,
The intimacy of his relation with God and his solidarity with
sinners and the oppressed are unique and shocking. He is the
human being radically free from God’s coming kingdom and
therefore radically free for communion with and service to the
18 Christology
neighbour. … [He] extends the welcoming love of God to those
who are thought least deserving of it (Luke 15:11ff.). Thus when
Christians call Jesus fully human, the claim is not simply that he
is a human being but that he is the norm and promise of a new
humanity in relation to God and to others.3
Jesus is fully divine.
New Testament affirms that: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to
himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). It means that what Jesus does and suffers is also
the doing and suffering of God. He is God preaching to us. His forgiveness
of sinners is not just the pardon of a human being; it is also God’s
forgiveness expressed and embodied in this human being. He is
Emmanuel – the God with us. His passion and death for us is not just the
martyrdom of another innocent victim in an unjust world; it is also God’s
suffering, God’s taking death into the being of God and there overcoming
it for our salvation.4 His resurrection is not the victory of a solitary human
being over death; it is God’s victory over sin and death for us all in
raising up of this man Jesus.
Jesus’ godship or lordship is to be understood in a radical way.
Chalcedonian Christology speaks of his divinity in an abstract manner
that is not in line with the gospel narrative. It describes the coming of
God’s Word, or God’s Son, in the actions and sufferings of a servant who
humbles himself and becomes obedient even to the death on a cross
(Phil. 2:5ff.). The gospel story unexpectedly redefines the meaning of
true divinity and genuine lordship by depicting the actions and sufferings
of a humble servant who gives his life unconditionally for the renewal of
the world.
Mystery of the unity of his person.
Classical Christological formulations affirm the two natures (divine and
human) of Christ are ‘hypostatically’ united in one person without
confusion, change, division, or separation. How are these united in
one? How can two subjects be perfectly united? How can there be two
agents of the same act? Baillie has rightly pointed out that it is a paradox.
However, this can be analogically explained from our Christian
experience. At the heart of Christian existence is the experience of divine
grace that precedes and enables human freedom. In every age Christians
have testified that we are most truly human, most fully ourselves, most
profoundly free when we live in response to God’s grace. Divine grace
and human freedom are not mutually exclusive.5 “Human nature, at the
contact of God, does not disappear; on the contrary, it becomes fully
human.”6
Christological Debates During the Patristic Period 19
Richard calls this unity, the ‘kenotic unity’ of God and humanity in
Christ.7 In Jesus Christ, God and humanity are united in mutual self-
giving love. It is a union of the Spirit in which there is reciprocal self-
limitation and total openness of each to the other. It is neither confused
(monophysitism) nor separated (Nestorianism).
Irenaeus (c. 120/140 CE – c. 200/203 CE)
The first two centuries were the most formative for Christian theological
development.8 This era witnessed the shaping of doctrines in the midst
of controversies. Second century is distinct in the study of Christian
theology as it is a rough marker of a significant change.9 It had to do with
the more urgent and fundamental tasks of defining the scope and limits
of what Christianity itself was to become. Christian writers in this period
had to face much more challenge from external forces than the No one
set out the ‘primitive Christian Kerygma’ of the Christian message in
written form more clearly than did Irenaeus, who was bishop in Lugdunum
(Lyons) after the persecution of 177 C.E.10 He is the first systematic
theologian of the Christian church.11 He was from Asia Minor, where at
Smyrna he had listened to the teachings of Polycarp, who himself was a
disciple of Apostle John. Irenaeus’ teachings were influential and to a
great extent dominated the Christian West.
He has two major works which survives: Against Heresies (Adversus
Haereses12) a form of theosophy survives in fragments, but a Latin
translation from about 380 C.E., is complete. He called it The Refutation
and the Overthrow of the Knowledge Falsely So Called. His another
work Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching or Proof of Apostolic
Preaching, known in a sixth century Armenian translation since 1907 is
“a compendium of theology.”13
Irenaeus’ anti-heretic polemics are well known especially his
Against Heresies. His main concern was to unmask the Gnostic myths
as absurdities and to affirm the corporeal reality of Jesus’ birth, career,
death and resurrection against the denial that anything material can be
of God.14
Irenaeus presents a catalogue containing various groups and sects
whom he calls “Falsely so Called” in the first volume of his Adversus
Haereses.15 Its impact on the subsequent work against the heresies has
been quite extraordinary and unrivalled. Several of Irenaeus’ uses of
the designation gnostikos are more ambiguous, and it is not very clear
whether he is indicating the specific sects again or using “Gnostics”
now merely as a shorthand reference for virtually all of the groups he is
opposing.16
20 Christology
His Christology emerges out of his confrontation with ‘heretics.’
“The feud with Gnostic faith helps Irenaeus formulate his Christology.”17
His Christology was not metaphysical but as Baillie writes, Irenaeus’
attempt to find the divine in Jesus is not linked to a metaphysical basis
but is an attempt to correlate the redemptive love of Jesus and the
nature of God.18
On account of his knowledge of both heresy and heresiology,
Irenaeus seemed to have been well equipped to speak out against the
‘gnosis falsely called-so.’ One comment is valid here, even though he
had Greek background to speculate but he restrained from doing so.19
There was something more constructive and creative in Irenaeus’
speaking out. He wrote at a time when heretic or orthodox polarization
does not seem to have been clear.20 There was no clear-cut demarcation
between the contending parties. The Gnostics were Christians and they
had easy access to the believers. What Irenaeus achieved, at least in
the West, was not only the intended refutation, but the lasting polarization
of Christian fronts.21
Irenaeus accuses the Gnostics of ignoring the ‘hypothesis of truth,’
the substance of Christian faith. Philip Hefner has pointed out how crucial
this concept of ‘hypothesis’ is to Irenaeus’ refutation of the Gnostics. It
comprises of God’s redemptive dispensation on human’s behalf. This is
the foremost authority and all others are subordinate to it: scripture,
tradition, church, bishop, creed and revelation.22 It is ‘that there is one
God, creator of the world, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and author of
the economy.’23
Irenaeus accuses the Gnostics of substituting the ‘hypothesis of
faith’ with their own hypothesis which they ‘dreamt into existence’24 and
is a subtraction from the ‘hypothesis of faith.’ He especially gets annoyed
with the Valentinians and charges them of blasphemy because they
introduce division into God; it splits the divine and breaks its unity.25
For him the gospels were the main resource for his Christology. He
opposed the Docetics. He rejected Marcion (he rejected the God of the
Hebrew scripture as the one who created evil and humanity, also the
dualism of evil and good; and two Christs-heavenly and earthly) and
maintained that God is God of love and He was known through Jesus
Christ.
He used Logos (the Hebrew notion) as the communication of God,
though not quite equal to God. It was through the Logos that God entered
creation and history from the beginning, always wanting to share Self
with all of creation. The incarnation, is the climax of creation summing
up, or ‘recapitulates’ what God had intended for the world all along: the
Christological Debates During the Patristic Period 21
union of the divine and the human. In Christ a new humanity begun and
through this humanity sin is overcome. He is credited with the origin of
incarnational theology.26
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 CE – c. 215 CE)
Titus Flavius Clemens’ (popularly known as Clement of Alexandria)
date of birth is not known (some suggests it was around 150 CE) and he
died about the year 215 CE. He was a Greek philosopher (Platonism)
who later converted to Christianity and became a theologian and head
of the catechetical school of Alexandria.
Clement has had no notable influence on the course of theology
beyond his personal influence on the young Origen. Clement has in fact
been dwarfed in history by the towering grandeur of the great Origen,
who succeeded him at Alexandria. Down to the seventeenth century he
was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the martyrologies,
and his feast fell on the fourth of December. Some of his doctrines were,
if not erroneous, at least suspect. He lacks technical precision and makes
no pretence to orderly exposition. It is easy, therefore, to misjudge him.
In more recent times there is a renewed interest in his teachings and
writings especially his claims of philosophy. He was exceptionally well-
read. He had a thorough knowledge of the whole range of Biblical and
Christian literature, of orthodox and heretical works. He was fond of
letters also, and had a fine knowledge of the pagan poets and
philosophers; he loved to quote them, too, and has thus preserved a
number of fragments of lost works. The mass of facts and citations
collected by him and pieced together in his writings is in fact unexampled
in antiquity, though it is not unlikely that he drew at times upon the
florilegia, or anthologies, exhibiting choice passages of literature.27
Clement taught that God was revealed to the philosophers as well
as to the prophets. Every revelation comes through Logos, which in time
became incarnate in Jesus the Christ. This Word “clothed in human
flesh,” reveals God to human being.
His Platonic emphasis rendered Jesus’ humanity vague and his
emphasis on the teaching of the Word, rather than on the person and
life of Jesus would become later the foundational emphasis of the
Alexandrian school on the divinity of Christ.28
He says that the Logos “has come to us from heaven”; the Lord has
“entered into”, or “attached” Himself to, human flesh. In becoming
incarnate and so making Himself visible, He has begotten Himself that
is, created His own humanity. So Christ is both human and divine, “alone
both, God and man”. He has “clothed Himself with a man”, being “God in
22 Christology
the form of man, unsullied”, and as such, He has really suffered.
Clement taught the Godhead in three terms. Some critics doubt
whether he distinguished them as Persons, but a careful reading of him
proves that he did. The Second Term of the Trinity is the Word. He merely
drew a distinction between the Father’s Divine immanent attribute of
intelligence and the Personal Word Who is the Son. The Son is eternally
begotten, and has the very attributes of the Father. They are but one God.
So far, in fact, does Clement push this notion of unity as to seem to
approach Modalism. And yet, so loose a writer is he that elsewhere are
found disquieting traces of the very opposite error of Subordinationism.
He acknowledges two natures in Christ. Christ is the Man-God, who
profits us both as God and as man. Clement evidently regards Christ as
one Person — the Word. Instances of the interchange of idioms are
frequent in his writings. Photius (c.820-c.895 CE) has accused Clement
of Docetism. Clement, however, clearly admits in Christ a real body, but
he thought this body is exempted from the common needs of life, as
eating and drinking, and the soul of Christ exempt from the movement of
the passions, of joy, and of sadness.29 He defended the reality of the
incarnation and he attributed a human soul or mind to the God-man.
Some like Photius found problem with his positions especially the way
he allowed it to be coloured by the Greek ascetical ideal of apatheia, or
emancipation from passion. Clement was convinced that the Lord must
have been exempt from all desires, both those necessary for maintaining
the body and those peculiar to the soul, since His constitution was
sustained by “divine power”. His view seems to have been that the
directive principle (in Stoic language, to hegemonikon), which was the
ground of His organic unity, was the Logos. He it was Who in effect was
Christ’s “inner man”. On this assumption, since Christ’s human soul was
a mere copy of the divine Word, it is difficult to see what practical part
Clement can have envisaged it as playing. Soteriologically considered,
the humanity of Jesus had little theological importance in his scheme.30
Spirit’s Christology
Clement illustrates a widespread phenomenon in early Christian
thought, namely the lack of distinction between “Logos” and “Spirit.” He
uses “Logos” and “Pneuma” interchangeably. He ascribes the divine
acts of creation, preservation, and revelation to the “Name,” “Son,”
“Saviour,” or “Logos” (Strom. 5:6). In his theological idiom he identifies
“Spirit” with Logos.
Clement affirms the perfect identity between the Paraclete who is at
work in the Church, and the Paraclete who was active in the prophets.
Christological Debates During the Patristic Period 23
Implicit here is the identification of this Paraclete with the Logos, because
he had affirmed that it was the Logos who worked in the prophets. The
Paraclete, functions as a technical term in Clement’s description of how
the Logos transforms the perfect souls towards godlikeness.31
In his Spirit Christology one can find at least three determining
factors: First, similarly to earlier writers, Clement deploys an all-
encompassing theory of the Logos, and thereby inevitably claims for
the Logos certain areas of activity traditionally associated with the Holy
Spirit, namely the inspiration of Scripture and the charismatic
empowerment of the believer. Second, Clement follows the Philonic
model of “translating” Scriptural terms and images into philosophical
concepts, and “explains” the Biblical Pneuma in light of philosophical
“Logos.” Thirdly, the term Dunamis seems to facilitate this tendency,
insofar as Clement uses it alternatively for the Logos and the Spirit.
There is a clear blurring of distinction between the Logos and the Pneuma
in him. However, there is no ontological identification.32
Origen of Alexandria (c. 185 - c. 254 CE)
Origen was an Anti-Nicean Church Father. Some would argue that he
was the most scholarly man in the early Church between Paul and
Augustine. He succeeded Clement at the School of Alexandria. He is
well-known for his treatise on theology: On First Principles which probably
was the first Systematic Theology.33 His Alexandrian background defined
his stand on Christology. Human nature of Jesus is understood in the
Hypostatic Union as generic human nature. His Christology is better
known as Logos Christology.
Origen was the one who brought Logos Christology to its fullest
development. He applied Platonic thoughts to the questions about Jesus,
and used the Logos to describe Jesus as mediator between God humans.
He taught that God was completely transcendent, so the divine cannot
mingle with flesh. The divine then must be mediated though the soul,
and therefore the soul is the point of contact for the Logos. In the
incarnation, the human soul of Christ was united with the Logos. This
closeness between human and divine is the way for Christ’s human
soul to share in the properties of the Logos. He explains this union with
the help of a metaphor:
[T]he metal iron is capable of cold and heat. If, then, a mass of
iron be kept constantly in the fire, receiving the heat through all
its pores and veins, and the fire being continuous and the iron
never removed from it, it become wholly converted into the latter;
could we at all say of this, which is by nature a mass of iron, that
when placed in the fire, and incessantly burning, it was at any
24 Christology
time capable of admitting cold? On the contrary, because it is
more consistent with truth, do we not rather say, what we often
see happening in furnaces, that it has become wholly fire, seeing
nothing but fire is visible in it? And if any one were to attempt to
touch or handle it, he would experience the action not of iron, but
of fire. In this way, then, that soul which, like an iron in the fire,
has been perpetually placed in the Word, and perpetually in the
Wisdom, and perpetually in God, is God in all that it does, feels,
and understands, and therefore can be called neither convertible
nor mutable, inasmuch as, being incessantly heated, it
possessed immutability from its union with the Word of God.34
This union between Logos and Jesus makes him true God. However, to
maintain the primacy of God the Father, he taught the principle of
autotheos which means God only and alone is God. He believed that
the Father had begotten the Son by an eternal act; therefore, Christ
existed from eternity. Using John 1:1 he argues that there were two
begettings of the Son: one in time (the virgin birth) and one in eternity by
the Father. Over the centuries Logos Christology became a very
significant way of interpreting Christ’s incarnation.
One finds a problem with Origen’s position: it looks as if he is saying
that the divinity was in the soul of Jesus, not in his body? Also his Logos
had a lower degree of divinity than the Father.
Arius (c. 250- 336 CE)
Arius was a Libyan Christian priest at Alexandria. He was well-known
for his ascetical, and moral teachings among his community. He attracted
many to his teachings especially about the absolute oneness of the
divinity as the highest perfect being. His theological teachings came to
be known as Arianism where he affirmed the finite nature of Christ and
was denounced by the early church as a major heresy at the Council of
Nicaea in 325 CE.
Kärkkäinen righty writes, “We do not know for sure what Arius taught
and therefore are dependent on the writings of his opponents.”35 A saying
attributed to Arius summarizes his thesis about the origin of Christ: “There
was [a time] when he was not.” The fundamental premise of his system
is the affirmation of the absolute uniqueness and transcendence of
God, the unoriginate source (agennetos arche) of all reality. Since God
is unique, transcendent and indivisible, the being or essence (ousia) of
the Godhead cannot be shared or communicated. For God to impart His
substance to some other being, however exalted, would imply that He is
divisible (diairetos) and subject to change (treptos), which is
inconceivable. Moreover, if any other being were to participate in the
divine nature in any valid sense, there would result a duality of divine
Christological Debates During the Patristic Period 25
beings, where the Godhead is by definition unique. Therefore whatever
else exists must have come into existence, not by any communication of
God’s being, but by an act of creation on His part, that is, must have
been called into existence out of nothing. Of course God is God the
Father. Arius appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28:
“the Father is greater than I” and also Colossians 1:15: “the firstborn of
all creation.” Thus, Arius insisted that the Father’s Divinity was greater
than the Son’s, and that the Son was under God the Father, and not co-
equal or co-eternal with Him. What then is the relation of the Son or the
Word to God, to the Father? Arius, given his view of God, logically
concluded the following four things about this relation:
a. The Son or the Word of God must be a creature, ktisma or
poiema.
b. As a creature the Son or the Word must have had a beginning.
c. The Son can have no communion with, and indeed no direct
knowledge of, His Father.
d. The Son must be liable to change and even sin (treptos;
alloiotes).
The net result of this teaching was to reduce the Word to a demigod;
even if infinitely transcended all other creatures, He Himself was no
more than a creature in relation to God, the Father. Arius tried to secure
the divinity of Jesus in regards to other human beings. At the same time,
this position did not make Jesus equal to the Father. In a sense, Jesus
was in the middle. The controversy came to be expressed by two Greek
words: homoousias, the Son is of the same essence as the Father, and
homoiousias, the Son is of similar essence as the Father. The Nicene
creedal formula, saying that Son is homoousias with the Father, became
the orthodox view, and Arianism was condemned by the Council of
Nicaea in 325 CE. Arius was exiled to Illyricum along with supporters.
However, the victory of his opponents short-lived. He returned back and
a compromising formula was negotiated but before that could happen,
he died.36
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296 – 298 CE)
There are doubts about his birth date (c. 296-298 CE). He died in 373
CE. He was a short, dark (sometimes called “the Black Dwarf”) and a
poor man from a Coptic family in Egypt. He went on to become the
bishop of Alexandria (for over four decades). He was also a renowned
theologian, Church Father and an able apologist. He is particularly known
for his conflict with Arius and Arianism. A staunch Alexandrian, he held
to the full divinity of the Word. God alone saves, and the purpose of the
26 Christology
incarnation was to save humanity. His famous slogan was: “God became
human so the human might become God.” His well-known Christological
treatise is On the Incarnation.
The starting point of his Christology is evidently John 1:1. It is of the
Word-flesh type. He writes, “The Logos has become man, and has not
just entered into a man.” His Christology has a very soteriological
emphasis. He writes, “We ourselves were the motive of His incarnation;
it was for our salvation that He loved man to the point of being born and
of appearing in a human body.” It is interesting to note how he explains
the process of incarnation. According to him, Christ took flesh. He
fashioned a body for himself in the Virgin’s womb. Logos is the governing
principle to understand incarnation. It (?) is the animating principle, and
the rational soul of human. Logos in Christ is both the integral part of him
as well as the moving and animating force off his body.
How can divine suffer (on the Cross)? He answered by
distinguishing between the Word in itself, where there is no suffering,
and the Word in Jesus’ body, where there is suffering. In this view,
however, the Word seems to replace the human soul of Jesus and he is
portrayed more as a heavenly man than a truly human being.37
Council of Nicaea (325 CE)
About 250 bishops (majority of them were from the East) were summoned
by Emperor Constantine at Nicaea (present-day Isnik in Turkey). Arius
and his followers were condemned and an official creed was formulated.
It reads,
We believe in One God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son
of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light
from Light, True God from True God, Begotten, not made, of one
substance with the Father, through Whom all things were made.
Imperial authority was used to settle doctrinal issue. Church became
part of the ‘kingdom’ something different from the kingdom of God
preached by Jesus.
There was an over reliance on Greek philosophy than on scripture.
This led to a more ‘high Christology.’
Apollinarius of Laodicea (c. 310 – c. 390 CE)
He is also known as Apollinarius “the Younger” (c.310-c.390 CE). He
was particularly peeved with the increasing spreading of the belief that
in Christ the Logos assumed human nature in its entirety. In that case,
he thought that Logos would be contaminated by the weakness of human
Christological Debates During the Patristic Period 27
nature. And Jesus’ sinless nature cannot be maintained. Apollinarius
being a pious, orthodox theologian cannot maintain such a position, so
he suggested, that if a real human mind in Jesus were replaced by a
purely divine mind, only then could Christ’s sinlessness can be
maintained. He maintained that Christ had a human body and a human
sensitive soul, but no human rational mind, the Divine Logos took over
the latter.
His teachings gave rise to what came to be known as
Apollinarianism. His Christological position rendered Christ’s human
nature incomplete. It compromised Jesus’ role as the Saviour. His position
was to obviate the Arian position, but ended up proposing a similar
position like his opponent. Apollinarianism was condemned at the
Council of Constantinople, 381 CE.
Cappadocian Fathers
These were a remarkable group of philosophically minded theologians
from Cappadocia—Basil of Caesarea also known as Basil the Great
(330-379 CE), his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa (c.332-395 CE),
and his lifelong friend Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389 CE). Quasten
says, Basil was the “man of action,” Gregory of Nazianzus “the orator,”
and Gregory of Nyssa “the thinker.” 38 They were instrumental in
development of the early doctrine of Christian theology especially the
doctrine of the Trinity. They were also responsible in making substantial
defence against Arianism and Apollinarianism.
As evident (probably expected too), Arianism did not disappear
from the early church. At Nicaea it was asserted that the Son was of the
same substance (homoousios) as the Father. Even among the Arians
there were two views: some believed/taught that the Son is of like
substance with the Father and others who were more radical believed
that the Son cannot be like the Father (in terms of essence), because he
is created, therefore, he cannot be God. By using the formula of “one
substance (ousia) in three persons (hypostaseis)” the Cappadocian
Fathers presented their Christology.
Gregory of Nazianzus teaches about Logos that He bore the flesh,
and conjoins Himself with an intelligent soul for humanity’s sake, and
became human except being sinful. He argues that there are “two
natures (duo phuseis) concurring in unity” in the God-human, and He is
“twofold (diplous),” “not two, but one from two”; and of course there are
not “two Sons.” His two natures are distinguishable in thought, and can
be referred to as “the one (allo)” and the “the other (allo)”, but there are
not two Persons (allos kai allos); rather “they form a unity (hen) by their
28 Christology
commingling, God having become human and human God.” Gregory
states that the two natures “have been substantially (kat’ ousian)
conjoined and knit together.” For him, the Lord’s rational soul provides
the meeting-place for them (two natures); because of His natural affinity
to the soul, the Word can “mingle” with it. It should be noted here that
Gregory was not able to explain the finitude of Jesus’ human nature
especially his ‘ignorance’ of certain things.
Gregory of Nyssa opines that the God-head had entered into the
humanhood, so that Jesus could be called “the God-receiving human
(theodochos anthropos).” God tabernacled in Jesus. The Holy Spirit at
the incarnation first prepared a body and soul as a special receptacle
(oikeion skeuos) for the divinity, and the heavenly Son then “mingled
Himself” with them, the divine nature thereby becoming “present in
them both.” Thus “God came to be in human nature.” But how would
explain this union. Gregory of Nyssa would say that it is mysterious as
one thinks of the union of body and soul in a human being. In this
“mingling” (anakrases) the flesh was passive, the Logos is active,
element, and a transformation of the human nature into the divine was
initiated. But in the historical Jesus, the characteristics of the two natures
remained distinguishable. His Christology becomes problematic when
he argues that when Christ endured suffering or other human
experiences, it was not His divinity which endured them, but “the human
attached by the union to the divinity;” they belonged “to the human part
of Christ.” For him, the Godhead is impassible, therefore, it cannot be
affected by these human frailties. However, in Jesus, the divinity through
its concrete oneness with the humanity indirectly participated in its
limitations and weaknesses. Gregory recognized Jesus’ real humanity
but it was prevailed by the divinity ultimately.
Comparatively very little is found of Basil’s39 Christology. It is,
however, well known that he advocated the Nicene position against
Arianism. For him Godhead is perceived as three particular ‘personhoods’
that share the same essence. He sees the exalted position of Christ to
the ‘right hand of the Father’ as ‘a relationship of coequality’ to the Father.
Christ therefore, is divine and equal in divinity to the other Persons in
the Trinity. Christ is the power of God, the wisdom of God, the image of
the invisible God, and the brightness of God’s glory.
For Basil, the divinity of the Son is an essential aspect for human
salvation. This happens through the process of theosis, or deification in
Jesus, whereby, “God has become human in order that humankind
should become gods.” Incarnation is the uniting principle in the Godhead,
and also creates the access point between God and humankind.
Christological Debates During the Patristic Period 29
For Basil, Christology is ecclesially embedded in the worship, liturgy,
preaching of the Word, and the Sacraments. The real presence of Christ
is located in the church, and in the liturgical practice of worship and
participation in the Sacraments.
The most important ‘heresies’ to be confronted by the fifth century
church known as Nestorianism. Its proponent was Nestorius who
became bishop of Constantinople in 428. An Antiochene he was strongly
opposed to Apollinarianism’s diminution of Christ’s humanity. He was
opposed to the inappropriate usage of the title theotokos (‘God-bearer’
or ‘Mother of God’) for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and from this the
conclusion was drawn that he denied that Christ was God and regarded
him merely as a human. He preferred to use the term ‘Christ-bearer’ as
the best solution to this problem. Studies on Nestorius have shown that
he has been misrepresented by his opponents in many issues on the
person of Jesus Christ.40 His Antiochene emphasis made him to affirm
the completeness and distinction of the two natures and their union in
one person. He was vehemently opposed by Cyril of Alexandria41
(c.150-c.215 CE). He was the Patriarch of Alexandria. His Christological
formulation was Alexandrian in nature. Nestorius’ position on theotokos
provoked him. He found it to be a doing away with the full reality of the
incarnation. He raised a fundamental question against the Nestorian
position: “What is that lay on the altar? The body of a human or the life-
giving power of the Incarnate Christ?” Cyril’s main concern was not the
relation of the two natures in Christ, but rather the identity and the unity
of the Word before and after the incarnation.42 For him there are two
modes of existence of the God-human: pre-existence and incarnation,
but it is one and the same Word that exists in these two modes. Godhead
and humanity are united in the one God-human. He emphasized that
both the divinity and humanity are ‘hypostatically’ united, not just
‘conjoined.’43 And each of the elements in his being “remains and is
perceived in its natural property.”44
Ephesus 431 CE
At Ephesus Nestorius was excommunicated and condemned by Cyril
with the help of Caelestin bishop of Rome. This controversy sullied the
image of Christianity very much.45
The only positive achievement of this council was that it canonized
the Nicene Creed as enshrining the core of Christological orthodoxy.
However, the Council of Ephesus could not solve the problem of unity of
person in Jesus Christ. Aftermath of Ephesus was murkier than ever
before. So, attempts were made for reconciliation. An important accord
30 Christology
was reached between the Alexandrians and Antiochenes in 433 C.E.
called the Symbol of Union. Cyril for his part denied any change or
confusion of the two natures, while the Antiochenes reluctantly
abandoned Nestorius. Cyril’s favourite expressions, such as “one nature”
and “hypostatic union” were left out, and there was explicit mention of a
duality of natures in the union. Theotokos was admitted, and there was
no mention of a “conjunction” of the natures.46
Towards Chalcedon 451 CE
Even after the arguments, counter arguments, councils and counter
councils the core issue remained still the bone of contention. 47
Alexandrians thought Cyril conceded too much to the Antiochenes; the
Antiochenes felt very unhappy about the abandonment of Nestorius.
Serious clash between the two warring faction was precipitated by
Eutyches (c. 378-454). A pro-Alexandrian, he gave a new twist to the
Alexandrian insistence on the unity of Christ by teaching that in the
incarnate Christ there are no longer two natures but one. This is the
doctrine of ‘monophysitism’ the doctrine that in Christ there is only a
divine, not a human, nature.48 It was also almost fully Docetic.49 Eutyches
was condemned in the general council. The unexpected death of
Emperor Theodosius II in 450 C.E. gave the upper hand to the “two-
nature” group. They called for a new council at Chalcedon in 451. Some
500 bishops, majority of them from East attended this council. An
interesting comment is valid here. The main concern of the council was
the Empire’s unity, so a resolution of the Christological controversies
had to be found and imposed once and for all.50 So, Christological
formulation was also a political tool to foster unity of the Empire. Initially
there were differences but later the council settled for a creed.51
The church fathers thought that by formulating a creed they could
find a solution to the ‘absolute paradox’ of the divine and human in the
person of Jesus Christ. But it is a known fact then even a great council
like this could not solve the problem. Chalcedon is an important
milestone52 in the church’s progress towards a deeper understanding of
Jesus Christ.
Council of Chalcedon (451 CE)
The Council tried to resolve the Christological controversies between
Alexandrians and Antiochenes. However, they tried, but could not reach
a permanent settlement. But it was able to combat some major ‘heresies’
like Nestorianism and Eutychianism.
Christological Debates During the Patristic Period 31
The Creed reads as follows:
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach
people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly
God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the
Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;
in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of
the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days,
for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother
of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ,
Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures,
inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the
distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the
union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved,
and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence (hypostasis),
not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same
Son, and only begotten God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;
as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning
Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the
Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
End Notes
1 Christology of the Later Fathers, 218.
2 Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian
Theology (Michigan, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1993), 146.
3 Ibid., 146-147.
4 Ibid., 148.
5 D. M. Baillie, God Was in Christ: An Essay on Incarnation and Atonement (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948), 106-32.
6 John Meyendroff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (New York: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1987), 64.
7 Kenosis (emptying) is the action of free self-limitation and free self-expenditure.
Cf. Lucien J. Richard, A Kenotic Christology (Lanham, MD.: University Press
of America, 1982).
8 For a detailed essay on Christological developments in the first five centuries
refer to Samuel George, “The Emergence of Christology in the Early Church:
a Methodological Survey with Particular Reference to the Anti-Heretical
Polemics of Irenaeus of Lyons,” Asia Journal of Theology 24, no. 2 (October
2010): 219-231.
9 Arland J. Hultgren and Steven A. Haggmark, eds., The Earliest Christian
Heretics. Readings from Their Opponents (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996),
2.
10 Eric Osborn, “Irenaeus of Lyons,” in The First Christian Theologians. An
Introduction to Theology in the Early Church, ed. G. R. Evans (Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd, 2004; reprint, 2005), 120.
32 Christology
11 Robert F. Brown, “On the Necessary Imperfection of Creation: Irenaeus’
Adversus Haereses IV, 38,” Scottish Journal of Theology 28, no. 1 (1975): 17.
12 This title was given by Eusebius (EH3.23.3) cf. John Behr, The Way to Nicaea,
Formation of Christian Theology, vol. 1 (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 2001), note no. 4, 112.
13 Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, trans., Joseph P. Smith, Ancient
Christian Writers, vol. 16 (New York: Newman Press, 1952), 19.
14 Gerard S. Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus. History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1995), 80.
15 Valentinians (Valentinus, Ptolemy, Secundus, Marcus), Simon of Samaria,
Menander, Satornil, Basilides, Carpocrates, Marcellina, Cerinthus, Ebionites,
Nicolaitans, Credo, Marcion, Encratites – Tatian, Barbelo, Ophites, Cainites.
Michael Allen Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism” An Argument for Dismantling
A Dubious Category, Second ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999),
34.
16 Two views on the way Irenaeus’ understanding of Gnostics is valid here.
Norbert Brox suggests that it is a general label for all heretics. On the other
hand Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau argue that Irenaeus uses
gnostikos in two senses: a) meaning “learned” b) with reference to adherents
of the specific sect called “the Gnostic heresy” in Adv. Haer 1.11.1.
Why Irenaeus puts them all under the same category? One can say that it is
merely the category of “false teaching” rather than a grouping defined by a list
of phenomenological traits. For him the common determining factor in all of
them is their deficiency with respect to Truth. His primary object was not to
show what “Gnosticism” is, but what “heresy” is. Ibid., 33-37, 44-45.
17 Samuel Laeuchli, The Language of Faith (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), 17.
18 Baillie, God Was in Christ: An Essay on Incarnation and Atonement, 70.
19 It is interesting to note that some maintain that Irenaeus was interested in
presenting a Christ who is revealed in the biblical revelation rather than any
abstract philosophical one. Cf. Irwin W. Reist, “The Christology of Irenaeus,”
Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 13, no. 4 (Fall 1970): 241-251.
20 H. J. Carpenter, “Popular Christianity and the Theologians in the Early
Christianity,” Journal of Theological Studies XIV, no. 2 (October, 1963): 297.
21 Gerard Vallee, A Study in Anti-Gnostic Polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and
Epiphanius (Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1981), 11; ibid.
22 For a detailed understanding of Irenaeus’ ‘hypothesis of faith’ refer to Philip
Hefner, “St. Irenaeus and the Hypothesis of Faith,” Dialog 2, no. 4 (Fall 1963):
300-306.
23 Irenaeus, Against the Heresies -I, trans., Dominic J. Unger, Ancient Christian
Writers, vol. 55 (New York: Paulist Press, 1992). 1.10.1. Hereafter Adv. Haer.
24 Adv. Haer. 1.9.3.
25 Philip Schaff, “The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus”, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.html
(accessed 10, July 2006); ibid. 2.28.2. Also Vallee, A Study in Anti-Gnostic
Polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius, 19.
26 Brennan R. Hill, Jesus the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives, New ed. (New
London, Connecticut: Twenty-Third Publications, 2006), 224-25.
27 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm (accessed June 04, 2013).
28 For a detailed work on Clement’s Christology refer to Oleh Kindiy, Christos
Didaskalos: The Christology of Clement of Alexandria (Germany: VDM Verlag
Christological Debates During the Patristic Period 33
Dr. Mueller, 2008).
29 Ibid.
30 “Christology”, http://fromdeathtolife.org/chistory/christ1a.html (accessed June
04, 2013).
31 Bogdan G. Bucur, “Revisiting Christian Oeyen: “Th e Other Clement” on Father,
Son, and the Angelomorphic Spirit,” Vigiliae Christianae 61 (2007): 388-9.
32 Ibid.
33 Two good works on Origen: Ronald E. Heine, Origen: Scholarship in the Service
of the Church, Christian Theology in Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2010); Joseph W. Trigg, Origen, The Early Church Fathers (London: Routledge,
1998).
34 Origen, On First Principles Book II Section 6.
35 Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Christology: A Global Introduction (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Academic, 2003), 69.
36 There are controversies about the nature of his death. The Orthodox Christians
asserted that his death was a consequence of his heretical views. However,
today some alleges that he might have been poisoned by his opponents. Cf.
Charles Freeman, The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the
Fall of Reason (New York: Vintage Books, 2002); Jonathan Kirsch, God Against
the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism (New
York: Viking Compass).
37 Hill, Jesus the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives, 229.
38 Johannes Quasten, Patrology, vol. III (Texas: Christian Classics, 1962), 204,
36, 54.
39 A good piece about Basil Christology refer to Michael Gibson, “The God Who
Has Citizenship Among Us: Toward a Retrieval of the Christology of Saint
Basil of Casaerea” http://www.academia.edu/1400583/
The_God_Who_Has_Citizenship_Among_Us_Toward_a_Retrieval_of_the_
Christology_of_Saint_Basil_of_Casaerea (accessed June 09, 2013).
40 F. Nau (ed.), Le livre d’Heraclide de Damas, Paris 1910 and F. Loofs, (ed.),
Nestoriana, Halle 1905, also S. Cave, The Doctrine of the Person of Christ,
Duckworth, 1925, quoted in Macquarrie, 162.
41 Summary of Cyril’s Christology is found in a letter written by him to Nestorius
which has 12 points. (a) Mary is theotokos, ‘for she bore after the manner of
flesh the God-Logos made flesh,’ (b) the Word is united ‘hypostatically’ to the
flesh, (c) there are no separation of hypostasis after the union and they are
brought together in a natural union, (d) the fourth denies the property of
distinguishing the statements made about Christ, as if some properly applied
to the Word and others to man, (e) the description ‘God-inspired man’ is
repudiated on the ground that Christ is very God, the Word having become
flesh and sharing our flesh and blood, (f) it is wrong to say that the Divine Word
is Christ’s God or Lord, and not rather that after the incarnation He is
simultaneously God and man, (g) he denies that Jesus as man was moved by
the Word or clothed in His glory, as if there were a distinction between Him and
the Word, (h) he condemns those who speak of ‘the man assumed’ as
deserving to be worshipped along with the Word incarnate, and designated
God along with Him, for that suggests a separation; Immanuel is the Word
incarnate, and one indivisible worship is owing to Him, (i) the Holy Spirit is his
own, (j) our high priest is not a man distinct from the Word, but the incarnate
Word himself, (k) Lord’s flesh is the very flesh of the Word, possessing in
34 Christology Christological Debates During the Patristic Period 35

consequence quickening power, (l) the Word really suffered, was crucified separation, the difference of natures being by no means removed because of
and died in His flesh. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (London: Adam & the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in
Charles Black, 1958), 324-325. one prosopon and one hupostasis-not parted or divided into two prosopa, but
42 At first glance his views look similar to the Apollinarianism which stresses the one and the same Son, only-begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as
unity of Christ with the Word. the prophets of old and Jesus Christ Himself have taught us about Him and
43 George Sabra, “The Christological Controversies of the Fourth and Fifth the creed of our fathers has handed down. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines,
Centuries,” Bangalore Theological Forum XXXII, no. 1 (June, 2002): 82. 339-340.
44 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 321. 52 Even though Chalcedon marks a turning-point in the history of Christian
45 Both Cyril and Nestorius tried to enlist the support of the ecclesiastical and theological thought, the church had to pay a heavy price in the East
political higher ups to gain upper hand in the ongoing controversy of the Christendom when they rejected these formulations. Some of their objections
interpretation of Jesus Christ. Emperor Theodosius II (408-450) summoned a were that the imperial power in Constantinople (i.e., political) and the Church
general council to meet at Ephesus on June 7, 431. Cyril held a synod at of Rome (i.e., ecclesiastical) enforced its position on the unwilling adherents
Alexandria and sent a letter containing a list of twelve anathemas (refer to of Christians in the East. The most central objection raised by them was
footnote no. 107) appended to it, which was required to be accepted by regarding the Chalcedon’s sanction of the phrase ‘two natures after the
Nestorius. These could not be accepted even by moderate Antiochene. At the union’ by putting the expression ‘made known in two natures’ with reference
council Cyril and his allies came in time. Taking the advantage of delayed to the Christ. Cf. V. C. Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined. A
arrival of the Oriental (Antiochene) bishops he convened the synod and Historical and Theological Survey (New Delhi: ISPCK, 2001), 187ff.
condemned Nestorius because majority of the bishops with him (he could
gather 197 signatures against Nestorius); the Virgin Mary was officially
proclaimed as the theotokos. When the Oriental bishops arrived they held
their own council and condemned Cyril and his supporters. But he could
gather only 43 signatures. The emperor earlier deposed both Cyril and
Nestorius, but Cyril later managed to rehabilitate himself. Ibid., 326-327. Also
Sabra, “The Christological Controversies of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries,”
82-83.
46 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 329-330. Also Sabra, “The Christological
Controversies of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries,” 83.
47 George, “The Emergence of Christology in the Early Church: a Methodological
Survey with Particular Reference to the Anti-Heretical Polemics of Irenaeus of
Lyons,” 80.
48 John Macquarrie, Jesus Christ in Modern Thought (London: SCM Press Ltd,
1990), 164. This is contested by many. V. C. Samuel says the term ‘Monophysite’
does not have a history that goes back to the 5 th century. It is fairly a modern
term. Cf. V. C. Samuel, “The Christological Controversy and the Division of the
Church,” in Orthodox Identity in India. Essays in honour of V. C. Samuel, ed. M.
K. Kuriakose (Bangalore: Rev. Dr. V. C. Samuel 75th Birthday Celebration
Committee, 1988), 127-128.
49 Sabra, “The Christological Controversies of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries,”
84.
50 Ibid.
51 In agreement, therefore, with the holy fathers, we all unanimously teach that
we should confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the
same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood, truly God and
truly man, the same of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father
in Godhead, and the same consubstantial with us in manhood, like us in all
things except sin; begotten from the Father before the ages as regards His
Godhead, and in the last days, the same, because of us and because of our
salvation begotten from the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, as regards His
manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, made known in
two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without
36 Christology
CHAPTER V
Mediaeval and Reformation Christologies
Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas (1224/5/6-1274) is accorded with so many titles like Doctor
Cummunis, Doctor Angelicus, Dominican Philosopher, Theologian etc.
His father Landulf d’Aquino was a baron of Emperor Frederick II and his
mother Theodora also came from an aristocratic lineage. At the age of
five he was sent to Benedictine Abbey of Monte Casino in expectation
that he would become an abbot of the monastery. In 1239 he moved to
University of Naples, where he was attracted to the newly founded
Dominican Order. After his reception in the Order he was sent to Paris
(to avoid his family’s objection). He was confined to his family castle for
two agonizing years for becoming a Dominican. After his release he
began his theological studies in the Dominican priory of St. Jacques in
the University of Paris. Here he was influenced by St. Albertus Magnus.
During his stay in Paris he wrote De Ente et Essentia. In 1256 he
wrote Contra Impugnantes Dei Cultus as a defence of mendicant order
against the secular attacks. The same year he became the Master of
Theology and later Regent Master of St. Jacques. Here he wrote
Questiones Desputate de Veritate. Here he also began composing his
Summa Contra Gentiles, a treatise for the use of Dominican missionaries
in their dealings with non-Christians.
In 1261 he was in Orvieto where he wrote Contra Errors Graecorum,
and Cantra Aurea, and also a literal exposition of the book of Job. In
1265 he was sent to Rome, where he began writing his magnum opus
Summa Theologiae-as a handbook for friars. In 1268 he moved back to
Paris and taught at the University of Paris till 1272. Here he encountered
friction with the orthodox theologians and secularists over the use of
Aristotelian philosophy in theology. During this period he held
disputation on various issues one of it was on whether the union in
Christ was one of nature or of person. By 1272 he was back in Naples
where he continued to write Summa’s third part.
Mediaeval and Reformation Christologies 37
On 6th December 1273 while saying Mass, he underwent some
mysterious traumatic experience, which abruptly ended his teaching
and writing. He said about it, “Everything I have written seem like straw
by comparison with what I have seen and what has been revealed to
me.” On 7th March 1274 he died while he was on the way to second
Council of Lyons, at Cistercian abbey of Fossanuova, where he was
buried.
Christology in its simplest definition means the study about the
person and work of Jesus Christ. It is questionable whether Aquinas
agreed to such a definition of Christology. But one thing is very clear in
his writings that Jesus Christ was his chief concern of study. Probably he
provided the first systematic Christology that consistently resolved a
number of the existing issues.1 His Christology is indebted to his teaching
on God considered as Creator and Trinity. He takes him to be the point at
which divinity and humanity come closest to each other. Jesus Christ is
both truly human and truly divine for Aquinas.2
Aquinas’ deals Christology very systematically. One may question
his logic of explaining the person and work of Jesus Christ in the Third
Part of the Summa Theologica. Should not Christology be the foundation
of any theological formulations? Chenu makes an interesting comment:
“if this embarrasses you, then you will find Aquinas embarrassing.”3
Aquinas retained for his entire work a pattern of process, a process that
flows from God and includes human beings moving toward the eschaton.
His Christology follows the Aristotelian pattern of nature grounding
actions, treats first the subject of the union, the Word in Jesus of Nazareth;
the Incarnation then leads into the psychology and activities of the
prophet who was to be the universal saviour; and third, the events in
Jesus’ life are presented.4 For him Jesus was not a miraculous display
of divinity but the visible witness, the teacher, and the exemplar of the
mission of the Word, a clear influence of Aristotle.
Chalcedon is his starting point of Christology. He is orthodox in his
teaching about Christ from that point of view. He accepts without
qualification the doctrine of incarnation laid down by the Council of
Chalcedon.5 It is noted that Thomas as teacher summarized the principle
conclusions about Christ offered by the Christian traditions in theology
that preceded him, especially that of the patristic age.6 Christ for him is
one logical subject of whom divine and human attributes can be truly
predicated without equivocation. For him Christ is both human and divine
and in this understanding there is no question of myth, symbol, metaphor
or anything else which might be taken to imply that Christ is not both
what God is by nature and what people are by nature. Nor is there any
38 Christology
question of belief in Christ’s divinity and humanity being just an
expression of human values.7
For Aquinas Christ is the starting point. Everything he has to say
about Christ is an attempt to explore the sense and significance of what
he takes to be teaching of Chalcedon. For him therefore, belief in Christ’s
humanity and divinity is on a par with belief in the doctrine of Trinity. It is
matter of faith.8 Aquinas maintained that the doctrine of Incarnation
stemmed from the teaching of Christ.9 To the biblical quotation about
Christ as the author and perfecter of our faith Aquinas takes it to mean
that the divinity of Christ was taught by Christ himself.
Aquinas presumes that the New Testament gives us a substantially
accurate account of the life and teaching of Christ. Christ is presented in
the New Testament as laying claim to divinity and as acting as God was
supposed to act. He presumes that the picture of Jesus portrayed in
New Testament is substantially correct.
Another important point of his understanding of Christ is that his
Christology is to be understood within the salvation history.10 The reason
being the primary motive for the Incarnation for him was to remit and
remedy sins. Incarnation is insistently connected with soteriology.11
Incarnation is geared to human salvation, it is thus most appropriate for
the Son to assume human nature he opined.12 It is a Christology ‘from
above’.13
Martin Luther
Luther (1483-1546) was a German theologian, an Augustinian monk,
an ecclesiastical reformer, and a seminal figure of the Reformation in
the 16th century. He studied at the University of Erfurt and in 1505 decided
to join a monastic order, becoming an Augustinian friar. He was ordained
in 1507, began teaching at the University of Wittenberg and in 1512
was made a doctor of Theology. During his visit to Rome in 1510, he was
appalled by the corruption he found there. In response, on 31st October
1517, he published his ’95 Theses’, attacking papal abuses and the
sale of indulgences. In January 1521, the Pope Leo X excommunicated
him. In 1534, he published a complete translation of the Bible into
German, underlining his belief that people should be able to read it in
their own language.
Did Luther had a Christology? This depends on what is meant by
the word “Christology.’’ If we understand it as a completely elaborated
doctrine of Christ, we will not find such a thing in Luther’s work. Aside
from some Christological disputations, Luther never wrote a tract on
Christology.14 Statements about the significance of Jesus Christ are
Mediaeval and Reformation Christologies 39
spread throughout his work.15 Ernst Wolf writes that it is better to say
“Christology with Luther” rather than about “Christology of Luther.”16
Even a cursory reading of Luther would make it clear that Jesus
Christ was central to his theological thought. He writes in his Large
Commentary on Galatians:
In my heart that one article reigns, i.e. the faith in Jesus Christ,
from which, by which and to which all my theological ideas are
going out and are returning, though I realize not having
understood more than fragments of the height, breadth and depth
of this wisdom and having reached no more than a weak and
defective beginning.17
The uniqueness of Luther’s Christology is the interplay between
Christology and Soteriology. All what he said about Jesus Christ has
soteriological relevance, and salvation is only found in Jesus Christ.18
He was not interested in Jesus Christ as a “private person,” but only in
Him as a “public person,” regarding what He has done for my/our good
is of prime importance to him, not the person of Jesus.
Luther from the start stood by the historical expressions of the church
in the creeds and the Christological work of the fathers heading toward
Chalcedon. He had no difficulty in accepting the traditional creeds of the
church concerning Christology, but uniquely placed a heavy emphasis
on “Johannine characteristics” (humanity). Luther at times appears to
comingle the two natures. Luther adopts the traditional dogmatic doctrine
of the two natures. In agreement with it he teaches the full unity of the
deity and the humanity in the person of Jesus Christ, the full participation
of the humanity in the deity and of the deity in the humanity. “God has
suffered; a man created heaven and earth; a man died; God who is from
all eternity died; the boy who nurses at the breast of the Virgin Mary is
the creator of all things.”
How could he maintain the true humanity of Christ under these
circumstances? He teaches that Jesus Christ, according to his human
nature, also possessed the attributes of the divine majesty, that is, that
even the child Jesus was omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.’’
It is remarkable that Luther, by emphatically stressing the humanity
as well as the divinity of Christ, actually reunited the old Antiochene and
Alexandrian traditions. It is, however, more remarkable that Luther, in
spite of the tensions this combination brought about, always insisted on
the inseparable union of God and man in Jesus Christ. Luther
emphasized this union to the utmost even when it seems hardly bearable
for “decent” theology. Here one could refer to Luther’s allusions to a pre-
existent union of God with humanity as He was already present in the
40 Christology
womb of Mary, and even to a crucifixion from eternity.19
When looking through the eyes of Luther, what kind of Christ does
one see? One can highlight some of the ways Luther emphasized Christ
at various times during his life and reform efforts. Initially, Luther’s Christ
was no friend but rather the judge enthroned on the rainbow with a
levelling sword and consuming fire-not arbitrary or unfair, just all too
righteous for Luther’s eternal good.20 He also found Christ regularly in
the Old Testament. Christ stands in front of Moses in the burning bush –
incarnation. Divinity was right in front of him (in Christ), though hidden in
humanity-God in the bush prompted this thinking.21
John Calvin
Calvin (1509-1564) was a French Protestant Reformation theologian.
His influence in the theological realm led to Calvinism. He is well-known
for his magnum opus: The Institute of the Christian Religion (1536).
Protestant theology owes a lot to this tireless polemic and apologetic.
His adherence to the Reformation platform of sola Christi commits him
to a certain Christocentrism in his theology, at least on a material if not a
formal level.22
Calvin’s Christology has been the subject of intense interest and
debate, both in the Reformation era and in the twentieth century. His
rejection of the Lutheran use of the communicatio idiomatum,23 which
was developed to undergird an understanding of the real presence of
Christ in the Lord’s Supper, led to the charge that he had a Nestorian
Christology which did not sufficiently address the unity of God and
humanity in Jesus Christ and the subsequent glorification of his humanity
in its hypostatic union with the eternal Son of God.24
Calvin’s doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum allows for the
preservation of the purity of Christ’s divine nature amidst his involvement
in the depravity of human nature in ways which make Calvin’s Christology
so unique. He affirms both the divinity and humanity of Christ ‘so joined
and united . . . that each retains its distinctive nature unimpaired, and yet
these two natures constitute one Christ’ (Institute, II.xiv.1). He avoids the
error of Nestorius by positing a real union of the natures (consonant
with that proposed by the Council at Ephesus). He also avoids the
opposite error of Eutyches by positing the enduring distinction between
the two natures such that they do not blend or co-mingle (consonant to
the rules laid down at the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon
(Institute, II.xiv.4). he uses the term ‘hypostatic union’ in the sense of
demarcating the constitution of one person from two natures.
Calvin asserts that the second person of the Trinity existed prior to
Mediaeval and Reformation Christologies 41
the incarnation as the ‘Son of God’. The enfleshment of the eternal Son
resulted, not in the creation of a second god, but of his also becoming
the ‘Son of Man’ (Institute, II.xiv.6). He is Son, therefore, according to
both natures;25 and, contrary to the errors of Servetus, his eternal Sonship
is not dependent upon his earthly Sonship (Institute, II.xiii.4). In that his
being called ‘Son of God’ results from his relationship to his heavenly
Father and his being called ‘Son of Man’ results from his being of the
lineage of King David, this ‘makes a distinction between the two natures’
(Institute, II.xiv.6).
It should be noted that Calvin’s discussion of the communicatio
does not operate on the ontological level. 26 He discusses the
communicatio within his hermeneutical discussion of New Testament
texts regarding the person and nature(s) of Christ. He refers to the
communicatio as a ‘figure of speech’ 27 whereby: ‘They sometimes
attribute to Him what must be referred solely to His humanity, sometimes
what belongs uniquely to His divinity; and sometimes what embraces
both natures but fits neither alone (Institute, II.xiv.1).
Calvin maintains that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God,
the one true representation of God the Father. As such, Jesus Christ
both takes from us every evil thing we have and bestows upon us every
good thing we lack, through the wonderful exchange.28 By focussing on
Jesus Christ as the image of God in the wonderful exchange, Calvin
can unite several aspects of the person and work of Christ—the
incarnation of the Son of God, his anointing by the Spirit as the Christ,
and his obedience to the Father—into a unified presentation of Christ
and his significance for us. And in the process, he can demonstrate,
against the Lutheran criticism of his Christology, that he does emphasize
the unity of the person of Jesus as the basis of the wonderful exchange
and the glorification of his humanity as its result, and yet precisely on
that basis reject the Lutheran conception of the communication of
properties. He also uses the theme of Jesus Christ as the image of God
to unite the way we come to know God the Creator with the way we
know God the Redeemer—through the awareness of the powers of God
depicted in the works of God in the world—thereby freeing the
interpretation of his theology from a false dichotomy.29
End Notes
1 Etienne Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 502.
2 For a detailed study of Aquinas’ Christology refer to Samuel George, “The
Hypostatic Union of Jesus Christ in the Writings of Thomas Aquinas: An
42 Christology Mediaeval and Reformation Christologies 43

Enquiry,” Bangalore Theological Forum XL, no. 1 (June 2008): 118-48; Press, 2004), 3.
Corey L. Barnes, Christ’s Two Wills in Scholastic Thought: The Christology 23 Communication of properties or attributes of one nature to the other.
of Aquinas and Its Historical Contexts (Ontario, Canada: Pontifical Institute 24 Randall C. Zachman, “Jesus Christ as the Image of God in Calvin’s Theology,”
Mediaeval Studies, 2012). Calvin Theological Journal 25, no. 1 (1990): 45.
3 M. D. Chenu, Toward Understanding St. Thomas (Chicago: Regnery, 1969), 25 Ibid., 52.
9. Quoted in Thomas Franklin O’Meara, “Thomas Aquinas and Today’s 26 R. Michael Allen, “Calvin’s Christ: A Dogmatic Matrix for Discussion of Christ’s
Theology,” Theology Today 55, no. 1 (April 1998): 54. Human Nature,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 9, no. 4 (2007):
4 Thomas F. O’Meara, Thomas Aquinas Theologian (Notre Dame: University 393.
of Notre Dame Press, 1997), 128. 27 Bruce L. McCormack, For Us and Our Salvation: Incarnation and Atonement
5 He may have been the first scholastic of the Middle Ages to quote the texts in the Reformed Tradition, Studies in Reformed Theology and History 1.2
of Chalcedon and other early Christian Councils. Cf. James Weisheipl, Friar (Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1993), 8. Quoted in Allen, “Calvin’s
Thomas d’Aquino (Washington DC: 1983), 164 f. quoted in Brian Davies, The Christ: A Dogmatic Matrix for Discussion of Christ’s Human Nature,” 393.
Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 298. 28 Zachman, “Jesus Christ as the Image of God in Calvin’s Theology,” 61.
6 Joseph P. Wawrykow, “Wisdom in the Christology of Thomas Aquinas,” in 29 Ibid., 62.
CHRIST Among the MEDIEVAL DOMINICANS. Representations of Christ in
the Texts and Images of the Orders of Preachers, ed. Kent Emery and
Joseph P. Wawrykow (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1998),
186.
7 But it should also be noted that among the Medieval theologians (whose
major interest was in Jesus’ being, a divine metaphysical person within a
human being) Thomas Aquinas stood out for his interest in Jesus’ humanity.
He treated questions like the why did messiah choose a lowly state of lie,
being a craftsman and a travelling preacher?
8 Davies, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas, 319.
9 Ibid., 298-299.
10 O’Meara, Thomas Aquinas Theologian, 132.
11 Wawrykow, “Wisdom in the Christology of Thomas Aquinas,” 183.
12 Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica (Wheaton: Wheaton College). 3a.
3. 8.
13 Gerald O’Collins, Christology. A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of
Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 203.
14 A good work on Luther’s Christology refer to Marc Lienhard, Luther, Witness
to Jesus Christ: Stages and Themes in the Reformer’s Christology, trans.,
Edwin H. Robertson (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982). Also
Paul Martin Bretscher, “Luther’s Christ,” Concordia Theological Monthly 31,
no. 4 (April 1, 1960): 212-14; Vidar L. Haanes, “Christological Themes in
Luther’s Theology,” Studia Theologica 60, no. 1 (January 2007): 21-46;
Martin Luther and Mitchell Tolpingrud, “Luther’s Disputation Concerning the
Divinity and Humanity of Christ.,” Lutheran Quarterly 10, no. 2 (June 1,
1996): 151-78.
15 Klaas Zwanepol, “A Human God: Some Remarks on Luther’s Christology,”
Concordia Journal 30, no. 1-2 (January 1, 2004): 41.
16 Quoted in ibid., 42.
17 Quoted in ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid., 44.
20 Robert Rosin, “Reformation Christology: Some Luther Starting Points,”
Concordia Theological Quarterly 71, no. 2: 152.
21 Ibid., 154.
22 Stephen Edmondson, Calvin’s Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University
44 Christology
CHAPTER VI
Doctrine of Atonement
The English word ‘atonement’ is derived from the word ‘at-one-ment,’ to
make two parties at one, to reconcile two parties one to another. It means
essentially reconciliation. In current usage, the phrase, ‘to atone for’
means the undertaking of a course of action designed to undo the
consequences of a wrong act with a view to restoration of relationship
broken by the wrong act. This is the meaning which the word ‘atonement’
carries in biblical context: to speak more precisely, it means the work of
Christ culminating at Calvary. The Hebrew root is Kaphar- in New
Testament καταλαγε ‘reconciliation’. The word ‘atonement’ is not found
in the modern English version of the New Testament at all, but the idea
is expressed in many ways.
The Bible assumes the need for some kind of atoning action if a
person is to be restored to a right and proper relationship with God. It
further argues that this restoration is wholly of the sovereign mercy of
God, free and undeserved, and that nothing a person is or has can do
anything to effect this relationship. The Christ- event enables a person
to see that there was no other way to effect atonement, there was no
other Person, no alternative means. Something more than forgiveness
(as shown in the Old Testament) was at stake- and that was justification-
a working relationship. Only the Son of God made flesh could qualify in
his righteousness, sinlessness and obedience.
Down the centuries theologians have expressed their opinions to
the important question- How did Christ effect this great change in
human’s relation to God of which Christian life and faith are the evidence?
And they have come up with some explanations which are known in the
Christian circle as ‘theories of atonement.’
Satisfaction/Juridical theory
Satisfaction theories1 start from the idea that human sin constitutes a
grave offense against God, the magnitude of which renders forgiveness
Doctrine of Atonement 45
and reconciliation morally impossible unless something is done either
to satisfy the demands of justice or to compensate God for the wrong
done to him. These theories go on to note that human beings are
absolutely incapable on their own of compensating God for the wrong
they have done to him, and that the only way for them to satisfy the
demands of justice is to suffer death and eternal separation from God.
Thus, in order to avoid this fate, they are in dire need of help. Christ,
through his death (and, on some versions, through his sinless life as
well) has provided that help. The different versions of the satisfaction
theory are differentiated by their claims about what sort of help the work
of Christ has provided.
This theory was propounded by St. Anselm (1033-1109). He calls it
‘debt-cancellation’ theory. Sin is ‘not to render God his due’ and human
being has dishonoured God by obeying his enemy Satan. Therefore,
human must either be punished or they must make adequate satisfaction
to God. Human being’s sin is Infinite, and so the satisfaction which God’s
honour requires is infinite also. Only God can render such satisfaction-
and yet human must make it. The only solution was –God himself
become human, and in the person of Jesus Christ, the God-Human,
should make the full satisfaction, which human must make but only God
can make. So God gives himself to Christ, he accepts the satisfaction
offered by Christ on the cross- human is free. Christ makes the satisfaction
of our behalf.
Penal Substitution theory
This theory was defended by John Calvin and many others in the
reformed tradition. According to this theory, the just punishment for sin is
death and separation from God. Moreover, on this view, though God
strongly desires for us not to receive this punishment it would be unfitting
for God simply to waive our punishment. But, as in the case of monetary
fines, the punishment can be paid by a willing substitute. Thus, out of
love for us, God the Father sent the willing Son to be our substitute and
to satisfy the demands of justice on our behalf.
Subject View/Moral Influence theory
It emphasizes the importance of the effect of Christ’s cross on the sinner.
This view is generally attributed to Peter Abelard (1079-1142), who said
that Christ in his death is the manifestation of God’s love. He holds that
the work of Christ is fundamentally aimed at bringing about moral and
spiritual reform in the sinner—a kind of reform that is not fully possible
apart from Christ’s work. The Son of God became incarnate, on this view,
46 Christology

in order to set this example and thus provide a necessary condition for
the moral reform that is, in turn, necessary for the full restoration of the
relationship between creature and Creator.
This theory is sometimes called the exemplarism theory. Looking at
the cross (greatness of divine love) delivers us from fear and kindles in
us an answering love. The sight of the selfless Christ dying for sinners
moves us to repentance and faith. We are saved by repentance. The
thrust is on ‘personal experience.’ Both Schleiermacher and Ritschl used
this theory. The former said, ‘Christ’s loving compassion for sinner lift
them from the sin and takes them into fellowship with God.’ In India
Chenchiah and Appasamy were greatly influenced by this theory.
Chenchiah said, redemption is affected not by death but by the larger
life…. Salvation is not just sinlessness but lifefulness.’ For Appasamy
cross is the uttermost expression of God’s love. It works through its
moral influence on human beings rather than by any kind of actual
transaction.

End Notes
1 The other being penal substitution theory defended by John Calvin and
many others in the reformed tradition, and the penitential substitution theory,
attributed to Thomas Aquinas and defended most recently by Eleonore Stump
and Richard Swinburne. Cf. Eleonore Stump, “Atonement According to
Aquinas,” in Philosophy and the Christian Faith, ed. T.V. Morris (Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), 61-91; Eleonore Stump, Aquinas,
Arguments of the Philosophers (London: Routledge, 2003); Richard
Swinburne, “The Christian Scheme of Salvation,” in Philosophy and the
Christian Faith, ed. Thomas V. Morris (Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press
University Press, 1988), 15-30; Richard Swinburne, Responsibility and
Atonement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989); Stephen Porter,
“Swinburnian Atonement and the Doctrine of Penal Substitution,” Faith and
Philosophy 21, no. 2 (April 2004): 228-241.
 Western Christologies 47

CHAPTER VII

Western Christologies

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768 – 1834)

Christology plays a very important role in Schleiermacher’s theology.
Niebuhr has observed, Schleiermacher’s theology is Christo-morphic;1
and for him the elements of theology are grounded in the person-forming
experience of being in relation to Christ and the community founded by
him.
The starting point of Schleiermacher’s Christology is the certainty
of the experience of redemption through Christ.2 In formulating his
Christology, he rejects four major early heresies: Doceticism,
Nazareanism, Manicheanism, Pelagianism.
Two conditions are requisites for Jesus being the redeemer. First,
he must be like us, he must have a nature similar to us. Second, he must
not himself stand in need of redemption, and he must have the requisite
power to save those that need redemption. As such he must be unlike
us. Extreme position on either of the above can lead to heresies that
were condemned by the Council of Chalcedon of 451. Schleiermacher
does not directly cite the issue of two natures as laid down by Chalcedon,
but he does maintain that any serious Christology must come to grips
with the problems faced by it. His own analysis is concerned to avoid the
pitfalls of the one-sided Christologies leading up to the council. The
insights of Chalcedon is important for him though he would not use its
language. He notes that the word “nature” is used of finite existence
having a particular essence, and remarks that even the heathens had
realized that it was inapplicable to God insofar as God “is to be thought
of as beyond all existence and being” (CF, § 96).3 For him speaking of
divine nature makes very little sense. To think of Jesus as having two
distinct natures expressing themselves in one person is analogous to
“a formula made up by combining indications out of which it is impossible
to construct a figure.”4
48 Christology
Schleiermacher notes that ever since the language of two natures
and one person began to be used, the results,
[h]ave always vacillated between the opposite errors of mixing
the two natures to form a third which would be neither of them,
neither divine nor human, or of keeping the two natures separate,
but either neglecting the unity of the person in order to separate
the two natures more distinctly, or, in order to keep firm hold of
the unity of the person, disturbing the necessary balance, and
making one nature less important than the other and limited by
it” (CF, § 96).5
He has two positions that are crucial for his resolution of the Christological
enigma. First, the essential character of perfect human nature is just to
express the divine. Hence there is no real duality between perfect human
nature and the divine. Second, human nature only achieves its perfection
in Jesus Christ; in fact the creation of human beings is ordered to
perfection in and through Jesus Christ.6
Schleiermacher’s understanding of the work of Christ can be broken
down into two key moments. First, Jesus strengthens each individual’s
God-consciousness, enabling it to dominate each moment of the
sensuous self-consciousness. In other words, Jesus awakens the God-
consciousness and establishes the dominance of spirit over the flesh.
Second, Jesus establishes the kingdom of God. Both moments are
interdependent, so that the awakening of the God-consciousness occurs
through the establishment of the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of
God is established through the awakening of the God-consciousness.7
Passion of Christ, for Schleiermacher is not some primitive element
in redemption and reconciliation. For him, if these are only focused on
the suffering then they are “magical caricatures” since they “isolate this
climax, leave out the foundation of the corporate life, and regard this as
a giving up of Himself to suffering for suffering’s sake as the real sum of
Christ’s redemptive activity” (CF, § 101.3). Rather, his suffering is a result
of his having entered the fallenness of humanity. Only in this sense can
it be said that “His suffering in this fellowship, if occasioned by sin …
[were] suffered for those with whom He stood in fellowship, that is, for
the whole human race” (CF, § 104.4).8
For Schleiermacher, Christ’s saving work is his inauguration of the
kingdom of God which is one of divine love. Jesus is perfectly receptive
to this divine love in virtue of his absolute dependence on the Father; he
expresses this love in his being born as a human being.
Karl Barth (1886 – 1968)
This Swiss theologian is one of the stalwarts of Protestant Christian
Western Christologies 49
theology of twentieth century.9 Ironically, he comes from the liberal
protestant school of nineteenth century. In 1914 he had a life changing
experience when he found out that his teachers, Adolf von Harnack
(1851-1930) and Johann Wilhelm. Herrmann (1846-1922), had endorsed
the aggressive militarist policies of Wilhelm II, the German emperor
from 1888-1918. Evangelical theology was becoming more humanistic
and there was a growing sense of pessimism that progress has slowed
down if not stalled. Liberal theology with its over-emphasis on reason
was not able to change the dawning pessimism among the Europeans.
Sensing the changing perception among people, Barth made the clarion
call with his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (first published in
1918 and later thoroughly revised in 1922). It was an affirmation of the
Word of God over human efforts at constructing religious meaning. He
writes,
God the pure and absolute boundary and beginning of all that we
are have and do; God, who is distinguished qualitatively from
men [sic] and from everything human … who is never a known
thing in the midst of other known things; God, the Lord, the
Creator, the Redeemer; - this is the living God. In the Gospel, in
the message of Salvation of Jesus Christ, this hidden, living,
God has revealed Himself as He is.10
For Barth theological enterprise begins and ends with Christ Jesus.
God is totally Other. There is no contact between humanity and God
apart from that which God has created, that is, the person of Jesus
Christ. God’s freedom meets in Jesus Christ, who establishes the
covenant of love that serves as the basis of our salvation.
Jesus Christ for Barth, is the pre-existent Christ as the Second
Person of the Holy Trinity. It is in and through Trinity one knows the
person of Jesus Christ. Trinity is the self-revelation of God-self. “The
reality of Jesus Christ is that God Himself in person is actively present in
the flesh. God himself in person is the Subject of a real human being
and acting.”11 Barth would not use the term person for Christ as he thinks
it modern usage of it confuses the earlier sense. He would rather use
‘mode of Being’ for Christ in the Holy Trinity.
He would accept Christ’s divinity without much difficulty. However,
he feels that to maintain the humanity of Jesus is a challenge. He notes
that New Testament assumes the genuine humanity of Jesus but it is
qualitatively different from other human beings. Since he is God,
therefore, he can be human too. But his humanity is different from other
humans. He can act both in an absolute and finite manner. God did not
cease to be God in the act of incarnation. The Son did not give up being
God by becoming human, but at the same time, as human he was not
50 Christology
omnipotent and eternal but limited in time and space. To a great extent
Barth borrowed from the Danish philosopher Sören Kierkegaard, his
theological positioning. Jesus of history is not of very great significance
to Barth, because the faith in Christ is not dependent on the earthly
details of Jesus.
For Barth, Christ’s role is that of a mediator between God and
humanity. By virtue of the incarnation, God and humanity are united. In
his divinity, Jesus represents God to humankind; in his humanity, Jesus
represents humankind to God.12 There is a covenant created between
God and humanity in Christ Jesus where God acts on behalf of
humankind through and in him.
Albert Schweitzer (1875 – 1965)
In 1901 at the age of 26 he wrote an important work on the life of Jesus:
Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis: Ein Skizze des Lebens Jesu.13
In 1906 he published Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der
Leben Jesu Forschung.14 He found himself captivated by the problems
of the life of Jesus and set about trying to understand them by investigating
their history. The outcome was a profound critique of the lives of Jesus
and a constructive view of Jesus’ ministry.
Schweitzer emphasized the eschatological message of Jesus. For
him, the liberal portrait of Jesus was a false modernization. But he
believed that it might help in reaching the historical Jesus. He opines
that Jesus in his journey–discourse to his disciples was not expecting
some natural kingdom in this world, according to the ethicizing
interpretations of liberalism, but rather a supernatural kingdom bringing
with it the end time. Jesus did not see himself as the messiah but as a
forerunner in line with John the Baptist. He only spoke of a future
appearance of the Son of Man. He is the eschatological prophet.
Schweitzer was sure that a “life” of Jesus cannot be constructed
from the sources that were available about Jesus. Only few information
about his last days of his life can be construed, and these can be
retrieved only from the gospel of Mark with the help of Matthew.15 In line
with the liberal view about the reliability of the gospel traditions, he too
gave preference to the gospel of Mark.
Schweitzer’s presentation of the historical Jesus was formed in
continual debate with the prevailing pictures of Jesus provided by the
liberalism of the time.16 His method was confrontational, and calculated
to destroy (the liberal position about Jesus), what seemed to him, highly
erroneous and non-historical. Liberal view about Jesus rested on four
assumptions:17
Western Christologies 51
1. The life of Jesus falls into two contrasting epochs, an earlier,
successful period of activity, followed by a retreat to the north,
and a second, later journey to Jerusalem characterized by
hostility and eventually death;
2. The passion story has been influenced by Pauline atonement
theories;
3. The kingdom of God is conceived as an ethical society of service
to humanity, a theme that dominates the passion narrative; and
4. The success of the passion depended on the disciples
understanding the kingdom in this sense and acting on it; the
passion-idea then must have communicated this ethical
element.
Schweitzer rejects the prevalent liberal position of two contrasting
periods in Jesus’ life. He agrees that there were two periods in Jesus’
career, but no one can grasp them without supplementing Mark with
Matthew. In his view the evidence suggested that the Galilean period in
Jesus’ life was mixed, success and opposition, but that Jesus in any
case held steadfastly from the start to the finish to the expectation of the
eschatological kingdom. At his baptism itself, Jesus knew of his
eschatological messianic call. His ethic goes along with his eschatology.18
Jesus sent his disciples out on a mission to proclaim the
eschatological kingdom, apparently expecting it to occur before their
return (Matt. 10:23). The Son of Man would appear at the end, however,
even after the return of the disciples the kingdom did not ‘appear.’ The
success of the disciples in ministry was a sign that the apocalyptic
expectation was basically correct, but something more was expected. It
is to achieve this something more that Jesus went to north, to Jerusalem.
Therefore, the atoning death of Jesus was a messianic necessity. The
apocalyptic expectation required that there be a period of “messianic
tribulation,” before the End.19 It is in the same line Schweitzer uses the
Son of Man sayings of Jesus. The suffering of the Son of Man is the
necessity of his mission, laid upon him by the divinely ordained course
of apocalyptic events.20
Schweitzer is generally silent about empty tomb stories and
resurrection of Jesus. Probably for him these do not belong to the domain
of historians. For him the Easter tradition had no special significance.
He remarked that the Christian faith stands by the question of Jesus’
messianic consciousness. If he did not hold himself to be the messiah,
then “this means the death blow to the Christian faith.” He opines that if
faith in Jesus as messiah only comes from the early church, then Christian
52 Christology
faith has lost its ground, for “the judgment of the early Church is not
binding upon us.”21 Only what Jesus said is important.
Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1884 – 1976)
He was a contemporary of Karl Barth. He was not a systematic theologian
but a New Testament scholar. He maintained that biblical exegesis
cannot be divorced from constructive theology.
He was one of the main architects of a then new methodology in
biblical studies: Form Criticism.22 He wanted to know the tradition that
lay behind the Gospel narratives, which he maintained was shaped by
the early Christian community. He concludes that what the Gospels tell
about Jesus and his life relates more to the Sitz im Leben, life situation,
of the early church than to the historical life of Jesus.23
He was particularly peeved with the many biographies of Christ
that were more interested in historical Jesus, because he thought these
were not representative of good biblical scholarship.
His major work on Christology is Jesus published in 1926. Here he
asserts that one can know very little about the person and the life of
Jesus, since the New Testament showed very little interest in the details
of his life and personality.24 According to him Jesus himself was not very
keen in portraying his personality either as a Messiah or Lord. What is
important is Christ’s teachings that confronts us with the question of how
we should interpret our own existence.25
For him Christ is both an eschatological prophet and a rabbi because
of his persistent eschatological messages (Matt. 21:11; Lk. 7:16) and
characteristic teaching methods (Matt. 7:2; Lk. 17:7-10). He did not reject
Jewish religiosity but overt legalism of the time. For him obedience is
not legalism.
Bultmann was particularly attracted to existentialist philosophy of
Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). Existentialism focuses on a scrutiny of
human existence.26 He creatively used Heidegger’s existentialism to
construct his Christology. Kärkkäinen succinctly explains this usage,
In his [Bultmann’s] view, the New Testament recognizes two
modes of human existence. The first one is “unbelieving and
unredeemed,” what he also calls as inauthentic existence; it is
characterized by the delusion of self-sufficiency and adhesion
to the visible and transitory world. the other mode of existence is
“believing and redeemed,” in other words, authentic. In this mode,
humans know that the … purpose for which humanity was
created is not reached by their own efforts but by committing
their lives to faith in Christ. This reveals the main difference
Western Christologies 53
between the secular existentialism of Heidegger and the Christian
version of Bultmann. For Heidegger, authentic existence is the
result of human efforts; for Bultmann, it is dependent on Christ.27
His emphasis on the “now” as the moment of decision allowed him to
reinterpret the eschatological message of Jesus in such a way that
absolutely everything depends on what we make of each moment of
decision for the kingdom.28 He felt that many of the teachings about
Jesus are the faith constructions of the early church.29
Later Bultmann tried to understand Jesus through the lens of
mythology. It was D. F. Strauss who first used the concept of myth as an
important tool to study Bible. For Bultmann, myth is not simply a miracle
or a story about a miracle but rather the way in which reality as a whole
is conceived. It is a prescientific way of conceptualizing reality. It is a
primitive means of objectifying the forces that impinge upon and
determine human existence and thus conveys insights concerning it. 30
For Bultmann, New Testament portrayal of Jesus is heavily coloured
by myths and legends. Labels like vicarious atonement, pre-existent
Son of God, virgin birth, empty tomb, resurrection, and the ascension
are incomprehensible to the modern mind. He feels that if the New
Testament is to retain its legitimacy then it must be radically
demythologized. For him, the only true historical event is the Easter faith
of the first believers.
Paul Johannes Tillich (1886 – 1965)
His theological method can be best termed as “correlation.” According
to him, theology should have a mutual working relationship with
philosophy in that philosophy asks the relevant questions, and theology
provides the answers from a Christian faith perspective. He writes,
“Philosophy formulates the questions implied in human existence, and
theology formulates the answers implied in divine self-manifestation
under the guidance of the questions implied in human existence.”31
Tillich owed a lot to the existential philosophy. It is through this we
need to understand his doctrine of God and Jesus Christ. Kärkkäinen
opines that Tillich followed Bultmann to extract the existential significance
of New Testament Christology. Tillich prefers the term symbol instead of
myth as Bultmann uses.
To understand the Christological formulations of Tillich it is important
that we understand his understanding of “being,” “non-being,” and
“Being.” For him, the question of being is the basic question of philosophy
and theology, and, its counterpart is the question of non-being. For him,
the question of non-being raises the question of a power of being that
54 Christology
overcomes the threat of non-being and sustains life. This for him is the
“Being Itself/Ground of Being.” And this Ground of Being is God. Without
this Ground of Being, everything finite would fall back to non-being or
nothingness.32
Jesus, the Christ, the New Being
Tillich’s Christology is to be understood from the perspective of his
understanding of human “fall” and the quest for salvation. “Fall” for him
a universal transition from essence to existence.33 It is real in its factual
effects but not in literal and factual sense. This estrangement of existence
from essence is to be overcome. As the New Being, Christ, is the answer
for human being to overcome this predicament.
Tillich opines that Christianity is based on two aspects: the fact of
Jesus of Nazareth and the reception of this fact by those who receive
him as the Christ. He prefers “Jesus the Christ” not Jesus Christ, which
for him, combines two irreconcilable elements: “the fact that which is
called Jesus of Nazareth and the reception of this fact by those who
received him as the Christ.”34 As an existentialist and in line with
Bultmannian approach, he rejects any attempt to reconstruct the historical
Jesus. For him, the factual, historical Jesus is not the foundation of faith
apart from his reception as the Christ. He argues that the liberal
reconstructions of the life of Jesus have failed to achieve any credible
results. He writes, “… faith cannot even guarantee the factual
transformation of reality in that personal life which the New Testament
expresses in its picture of Jesus Christ.”35 He trusted the New Testament
because it is the original source of the New Being. It gives symbols of
the New Being. There are three things about Jesus that the New
Testament brings forth according to Tillich: (1) the undisrupted unity of
his being with God; (2) his serenity to keep this unity against an
estranged existence; (3) Jesus’ self-surrendering love, even to the point
of self-destruction.36
Tillich writes, Jesus, the “New Being is essential being under the
conditions of existence, conquering the gap between essence and
existence.”37 “Jesus as the Christ is the bearer of the New Being in the
totality of his being, not in any special expression of it…. His being has
the quality of the New Being beyond the split of essential and existential
being.”38
Tillich was not happy with the conceptual tools used by Nicene and
Chalcedonian Christologies. For him, Jesus was not God become human
(as the orthodox confessions would explain), but “essential man [sic]
appearing in a personal life under the conditions of existential
Western Christologies 55
estrangement.”39 The subjection of the Christ to estranged existence is
symbolized on the Cross, and his conquest is symbolized in the
resurrection.40
Tillich was particularly peeved by the usage of “nature” by the
orthodox Christology for understanding the person of Jesus Christ. When
the word “nature” is applied to human beings, it is ambiguous, and,
when applied to God, it is wrong.41 Someone writes,
Human being’s nature can mean his/her essential or existential
nature; when applied to Jesus, the former meaning is pertinent,
for his humanity was never outside his essential unity with God.
But in the case of ordinary human beings, the latter meaning
applies. As far as God is concerned, He has no nature in the
sense of something to which He has to conform so that He can
be what He is. 42
Tillich writes, “There is no divine nature which could be abstracted from
his eternal creativity.”43 Jesus was not divine and did not have a divine
nature but rather manifested in and through his humanity an entirely
new order of being – essential humanity. In Jesus, humanity became
“essentialized” within existence. Kärkkäinen writes, “This was a great
paradox, a reversal of the necessary human fallenness. This Christology
can properly be called ‘degree’ Christology: Jesus was not different
from us in substance but in degree.”44
Wolfhart Pannenberg (b. 1928)
Perhaps, other than Karl Barth, no one has been more importantly
involved in the development of Protestant dogmatic theology than the
German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg. For a long time, he was
professor of systematic theology at the University of Munich. His major
work on Christology was, Jesus – God and Man, was published in
German in 1964 and translated into English in 1977.
Pannenberg sees the Son as the principle of difference in the Trinity
and so as the generative principle of created reality existing in relative
independence from God. However he does not interpret the Son as a
logically necessary stage in the history of the Absolute as Hegel
explains, but sees the free self-distinction of Jesus from the Father as
the ratio cognoscendi, the foundation of knowing, of the eternal Sonship
of Jesus, and this as the basis for the claim that the corresponding
eternal self-distinction of the Son from the Father is the ratio essendi, the
ground of being, for the existence of creation. The Son is therefore the
structural prototype of the destiny of creation to achieve communion
with God. And this can only be achieved through the Spirit, who is the
principle of communion in the immanent Trinity and so the medium of
56 Christology Western Christologies 57

the participation of created life in the divine trinitarian life.45
Incarnation for him is the realization of God’s communion with human
destiny. However, human beings can only achieve their destiny in
conformity with the self-distinction of the Son from the Father.
Pannenberg develops his Christology “from below” (which he
introduced in his path-breaking Christological work: Jesus – God and
Man) and its relationship to a Christology “from above” in a more
comprehensive and coherent manner in the Systematic Theology.46 In
the context of the Systematic Theology, which interprets the history and
destiny of Jesus as the action of the trinitarian God for the salvation of
humankind, Christology “from below” and “from above” are
complementary insofar as the former offers a reconstruction of the
foundation of the statements the latter develops systematically. The
starting point of Christology is, for Pannenberg, the distinctive humanity
of Christ in which the destiny of humanity to live in communion with God
becomes reality in Jesus’ filial relationship to God. Rooted in his self-
distinction from the Father by becoming obedient to him, the divinity of
Jesus is therefore not a foreign element added to the reality of Jesus’
humanity, but the reflection from Jesus’ relationship to the Father on his
being and on the eternal being of God. The resurrection is in
Pannenberg’s interpretation the justification of Jesus’ claim to filial
authority by God the Father and in this way validates Jesus’ message.
This implies that God is eternally as Jesus proclaimed God to be: God is
eternally the Father revealed in the Son and therefore the Son is eternally
in relation with the Father and in this sense preexistent.47
Schwöbel writes,
In [the] [T]rinitarian framework humanity is conceived to be
essentially in relation to God because it is a specific expression
of the Son as the generative principle of difference and of created
independence. It therefore has the capacity of becoming the
medium for expressing the self-distinction of the Son from the
Father and so their communion-in-difference. Since living in
communion with God is the created destiny of humanity from
the beginning, the Incarnation is not an alien intrusion into
humanity but the actualization of its destiny. However, this is
only possible where the Spirit elevates humanity ecstatically
above its finitude and so enables it to accept its finitude and so
to become the medium of the expression of the relationship of
Father and Son. Conversely, the Incarnation is the self-
actualization or self-fulfillment of God in his relationship to the
world. 48
End Notes
1 Cf. Richard R. Niebuhr, Schleiermacher on Christ and Religion (New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1964).
2 Jacqueline Mariña, “Christology and Anthropology in Friedrich
Schleiermacher,” in The Cambridge Companion to Friedrich Schleiermacher,
ed. Jacqueline Mariña (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 152.
3 Ibid., 153.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid., 156.
7 Ibid., 165.
8 Ibid., 167.
9
Some have called him the Church Father for the twentieth century. Cf. Veli-
Matti Kärkkäinen, Christology: A Global Introduction. An Ecumenical,
International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker
Academic, 2003), 111.
10 Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans., E. C. Hoskyns, 6 th ed. (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 332-33.
11 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, part 2 (Edingburgh: T & T Clark, 1956),
151.
12 Kärkkäinen, Christology: A Global Introduction. An Ecumenical, International,
and Contextual Perspective, 116.
13 Albert Schweitzer, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God: The Secret of Jesus’
Messiahship and Passion, trans., Walter Lowrie (New York: Dodd, Mead,
1914).
14 Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its
Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1954).
Since 1910 it has been reprinted many times.
15 Walter P. Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950
(Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1999), 27.
16 Ibid., 28.
17 Schweitzer, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God: The Secret of Jesus’
Messiahship and Passion, 63-64.
18 Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950, 29.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 Schweitzer, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God: The Secret of Jesus’
Messiahship and Passion, 5-6.
22 This approach maintains that the frameworks of the Gospel stories were
created by the authors for their own specific purposes, and thus the Gospels
are less helpful for historical investigation than for theological interpretation.
This method seeks to classify units of scripture into literary patterns (such
as love poems, parables, sayings, elegies, legends) and that attempts to
trace each type to its period of oral transmission. The purpose is to determine
the original form and the relationship of the life and thought of the period to
the development of the literary tradition. Cf. http://www.britannica.com/
EBchecked/topic/213689/form-criticism (accessed May 05, 2013). Some
reference works on Form Criticism are, John H. Hayes, ed. Old Testament
Form Criticism (San Antonio: Trinity University, 1974); Klaus Koch, The Growth
58 Christology Western Christologies 59

of the Biblical Tradition: The Form-Critical Method (New York: Charles 45 Christoph Schwöbel, “Wolfhart Pannenberg,” in The Modern Theologians:
Scribner’s Sons, 1969); Gene M. Tucker, Form Criticism of the Old An Introduction to Christian Theology since 1918, ed. David F. Ford and
Testament. Guides to Biblical Scholarship (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, Rachel Muers (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 139.
1971). 46 Wolfhart Panneberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Michigan &
23 Kärkkäinen, Christology: A Global Introduction. An Ecumenical, International, Edinburgh: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company & T & T Clark Ltd.,
and Contextual Perspective, 120. 1994), 315-439.
24 Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, trans., Louise Pettibone Smith and 47 Schwöbel, “Wolfhart Pannenberg,” 140.
Erminie Huntress Lantero (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958). This is 48 Ibid.
the English translation of the 1926 book Jesus.
25 William J. LaDue, Jesus Among the Theologians: Contemporary Interpretations
of Christ (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001), 59.
26 Existentialism approaches the specifically human existence in terms of
historicity, in terms of concepts that focus on each human as an individual
who determines her/his existence through personal decisions. Cf. Kärkkäinen,
Christology: A Global Introduction. An Ecumenical, International, and
Contextual Perspective, 124.
27 Ibid.
28 LaDue, Jesus Among the Theologians: Contemporary Interpretations of
Christ, 60.
29 He asserts that the first Christians did believe him to the Messiah, but they
did not ascribe any metaphysical identity on him. It was the Greek-speaking
Christians who attributed divinity to him.
30 Kärkkäinen, Christology: A Global Introduction. An Ecumenical, International,
and Contextual Perspective,
31 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. I (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1951), 65.
32 Kärkkäinen, Christology: A Global Introduction. An Ecumenical, International,
and Contextual Perspective, 128.
33 These two terms are crucial for understanding Tillich. Essence denotes the
potential, unactualized perfection of a thing that does not exist yet. Existence
refers to the actual being that is “fallen” from its essence, in a sense cut off
from perfection. For Tillich, existence is always finite, fallen, limited and
distorted by the condition of being cut off from its true being, its essence. Cf.
Ibid.
34 Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), 97.
35 Ibid., 107.
36 Ibid., 138.
37 Ibid., 118-19.
38 Ibid., 121.
39 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. II (Chicago: University of Chicago
University Press, 1963), 150.
40 Kärkkäinen, Christology: A Global Introduction. An Ecumenical, International,
and Contextual Perspective, 130.
41 Tillich, Dynamics of Faith, 142.
42 Mathew Illathuparampil, ed. The Contemporary Theologians: Context and
Contributions (Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 2006), 537.
43 Tillich, Dynamics of Faith, 147.
44 Kärkkäinen, Christology: A Global Introduction. An Ecumenical, International,
and Contextual Perspective, 130.
60 Christology
CHAPTER VIII
Christological Reflections from India
In the religiously plural market place Christianity too has to ‘compete’
with other equally living faiths. Metacosmic in character, Christianity
seemed to have trouble connecting with native and cosmic religions of
India. Its core teaching, particularly Christology, hindered it from
harmonizing with the indigenous religions, whereas other Indian
metacosmic religions were able to insert into them and create an even
“higher level of intellectual sophistication.”1 A comment is in order here.
It is our contention here that such a climate of ‘hindrance’ therefore,
gave rise to Indian Christological formulations that were more
metaphysical in nature.
Jesus was born in Asia. Christianity as a religion left Asia for Europe
in its youth. It matured into a colonial master and ventured back to Asia
after fifteen centuries as a Western religion to subjugate it. Even after
centuries of mission works, the continent (of her birth) has less than four
percent Christians. She failed to attract many followers. Many observe
that Christianity, being the religion of the colonizers and empire builders,
had a negative impact on the natives.2 Pieris observes that religions
that hold on to the reality of an immanent but transcendent power such
as Christianity had difficulty becoming established in regions already
occupied by other metacosmic religions such as Hinduism and
Buddhism.3 He further observes that these matacosmic religions found
cosmic indigenous religions to be natural landing pads, the “first come,
first served” basis of accommodation 4 deterred Christianity from
advantageous positioning. Therefore, Pieris predicts that Asia “will
remain a non-Christian continent.”5
Christianity that came back to Asia was Western. Its Jesus was in
the image of a white European male conqueror. This colonial Christ was
a total stranger to Asia who despised the gods, goddesses, and spirits
of Asia. The adherents of other religions have to be saved from darkness
of evil. Salvation is possible for them only if they adopt Western culture
Christological Reflections from India 61
and abandon the native religious and cultural ways of life. Such a
Christology found the doors of Asians closed to it. This Christ is not
acceptable to them. Indian context is similar to the context of Asia. In
India and elsewhere there were attempts to understand and adapt Jesus
Christ both from the adherents of other religions and Christians.6 Among
the other religions, Hindus were the first to interpret Christ in India in a
comprehensive manner. Advaita became their central philosophical
strand to interpret Jesus in the Indian context. Prominent Hindu thinkers
namely: Vivekananda, Radhakrishnan interpreted Jesus as the Yogi,
one who is in eternal union with God. He is one among the many
incarnations of God. They also considered Jesus as one manifestation
of the eternal principle of Vedanta. They interpreted Jesus in the light of
the Vedantic impersonal principles, such as Christ and Buddha, and not
on the basis of the historicity of a person, as in Jesus and Gautama.7
Radhakrishnan interpreted Jesus as the ‘mystic Christ who believes in
the inner light.’8 Gandhi the other Hindu thinker gave importance to the
ethics of Christ than the person of Jesus.
Few among the pioneer Indian thinkers who made serious attempts
to understand Christ studied here.
Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s Christology
Roy (1772-1833) is hailed as the “morning star of Indian renaissance,”
“the prophet of Indian nationalism,” “the father of modern India.” Probably
he is the first Indian who took seriously the Christian faith and extensively
responded to it. Therefore, it will not be an exaggeration to call him the
“father of Indian Christian Theology.”
He was born in a Bengali Brahmin family. From childhood he pursued
religiosity and in search of truth he left his home at the age of fifteen. He
mastered various languages including Bengali, Sanskrit, English, Arabic
and Persian. The latter particularly impressed his young mind towards
the truth of monotheism as well as rejection of idolatry. He was particularly
peeved by the social evils prevalent in the Indian society. He was
instrumental in the abolition of the evil practice of sati. For this he was
mainly influenced by the teachings of Jesus and Upanishads. Boyd
writes, it was Christian ethics rather than Christian dogma which attracted
Ram Mohan Roy, and he saw no reason why a compromise should not
be possible between his own Hindu monism based on the Upanishads,
and the morality of the Sermon on the Mount.9
He was attracted to the ethical teachings of Jesus and saw them as
“a guide to peace and happiness.” In 1820 he published a book called:
The Precepts of Jesus, the Guide to Peace and Happiness, Extracted
62 Christology
.stsilegnavE ruoF eht ot debircsA ,tnematseT weN eht fo skooB eht morf
yllaicepse oirt eropmareS eht htiw eugolaid lacigoloeht ecreif a ot del sihT
gniretnuoc ”slaeppA“ eerht dehsilbup rehtruf eH .namhsraM auhsoJ htiw
tniop citsinamuh larebil a morf ygolotsirhC dehcaorppa eH .namhsraM
,tuo stniop ylthgir ahtramaS .weiv fo
a dliub ot erised eht yb erom detavitom saw yoR nahoM maR
dehsilbatse eht ot ssenlufhtiaf naht aidnI ni ytinamuh raluces wen
fo sgnihcaet eht no sisahpme knarf siH .ytinaitsirhC fo senirtcod
eb dluohs ssenippah dna ecaep ot ediug eht sa tsirhC suseJ
a pu dliub ot secruoser rof tseuq eht morf gnisira sa dedrager
01 . a i d n I n i y t i n a m u h w e n
htiw noitaicossa sih dna ,ecneulfni cimalsI sih ,dnuorgkcab citsinom siH
larutan eht‘ fo skaeps eH .snairA htiw eugael ni mih stup msinairatinU
ylerem si suseJ taht sdloh eH 1 1 ’.rehtaF eht ot noS eht fo ytiroirefni
rewop siht ssessop ton seod tub ,doG morf rewop htiw detageled
fo drocnoc gnitsisbus a“ noS eht dna rehtaF eht fo ytinu ehT .yllacisnirtni
fo ytitnedi ton dna ,seltsopA sih gnoma detsixe hcus ,ngised dna lliw
2 1” . g n i e b
deifilauq yrev a ni tub tsirhC fo seltit larutpircs eht stpecca eH
taht erus sekam tub htriB nigriV eht fo enirtcod eht stpecca eH .rennam
eht fo tsom stpecca eH .emas eht ni elor on dah tiripS yloH fo nosrep eht
erehw aidnI ni rof ,revewoH .noitcerruser eht neve ,tsirhC fo selcarim
.ecnatropmi ressel fo era eseht nommoc era selcarim
eht ton rehcaet a ,doG fo regnessem a eb ot suseJ deveileb eH
,egassap eht ni dnuof ’noS‘ tehtipe ehT“ ,setirw eH .doG fo noS enivid
ot thguo ’.cte ,noS eht fo dna ,rehtaF eht fo eman eht ni meht gnizitpaB‘
detaerc eht gnisserpxe sa enoyreve yb dettimda dna dootsrednu eb
31”.serutaerc lla fo detlaxe ylhgih tsom eht hguoht ,tsirhC fo erutan
a edam eH .ecnellecxe rap rehcaet a sa suseJ deredisnoc eH
senirtcod lacitsaiselcce eht fo )ytinivid( tsirhC etarapes ot troffe etarebiled
lufecrof erom saw sleef eh ,noitarapes sihT .suseJ fo sgnihcaet eht dna
.tes-dnim naidnI eht ot gnilaeppa dna
eht fo slive laicos yreve egrup dna msiudniH mrofer ot troffe sih nI
.serugif suoigiler eht edisgnola tsirhC ecalp ot hsiw ton dluow eh noigiler
hcihw ,ygolotsirhC fo noitseuq eht ot hcaorppa lanoitcnuf a saw siH
dna ecaep ot ediug“ a gnidivorp sa ygolotsirhC fo ksat yramirp eht was
eht ot roirefni yllarutan saw suseJ eht tlef ylgnorts eH 41”.ssenippah
nahoM maR ot gnidrocca ,eroferehT“ ,yoR fo setirw ahtramaS .rehtaF
lliw fo ynomrah fo sseneno eht si tsirhC dna doG fo sseneno eht ,yoR
51”.gnieb ro erutan ni ytitnedi fo ton ,esoprup dna
Christological Reflections from India 63
The Work of Christ
Roy writes that Jesus saved/saves humanity through his teachings, his
death was the supreme example of his teachings. Vicarious sacrificial
death of Jesus is rejected. Salvation is accomplished not by blood of the
lamb but following the precepts of Jesus: “the best and only means of
obtaining the forgiveness of our sins, the favour of God, and strength to
overcome our passions and to keep his commandments” (First Appeal,
1820, Calcutta, 10).16 Forgiveness is received through repentance not
through any atoning death. Cross is the supreme example of self-
devotion or sacrifice.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s Christology
Gandhi (1869-1948) was the pre-eminent political and ideological leader
and also a social reformer and a prominent religious visionary of modern
India. He is also called Mahatma [Great Soul an honorific given by
Rabindranath Tagore] Gandhi. He is also known as Bapu [Father] for the
masses.
After his return to India in 1915, he organised protests by peasants,
farmers, and urban labourers concerning excessive land-tax and
discrimination. In 1921 he became the president of Indian National
Congress and led a nationwide campaign to ease poverty, expand
women’s rights, build religious and ethnic amity, end untouchability,
and increase economic self-reliance. Above all, he aimed to achieve
Swaraj or the independence of India from foreign domination.
He was a religious innovator who did much to encourage the growth
of a reformed, liberal Hinduism in India17 It is suggested that Hinduism
should be renamed Gandhiism.18
Satya (Truth), Ahimsa (Non-violence) and Swadeshi (Love of the
neighbourhood) were his three major teachings. Interestingly for these
teachings he found the source in the teachings of Jesus.
Gandhi knew Christianity sufficiently well. Francis argues,
He had many friends among Christians at almost every stage of
his life. The most famous among these were Rev. Joseph Doke
while in South Africa and C.F. Andrews besides Verrier and Miss
Slade (Mira Behn) in India. He admired St. Francis of Assissi and
the writing of Brother Lawrence the simple door-keeper mystic.
A group of Italian nuns whom he calls ‘larks of St. Francis’ kept
writing to him.19
Margaret Chatterjee also asserts how knowledgeable Gandhi was about
Christianity:
64 Christology
Gandhi has commented on many of the leading events in Christ’s
life to a far greater extent than has any other modern Hindu. In
fact he brings to the understanding of these events a Hindu
insight which adds a new dimension to the interpretation of the
relevant passages in the New Testament even for a Christian.20
Stanley Jones says about him that, “he was a Hindu by allegiance and
a Christian by affinity.” “He was a Hindu who was deeply Christianized
– more Christianized than most Christians.”21 The ideas and concepts
he represented seemed strangely Christian. It was not until Gandhi
started studying the New Testament in his student days in London that
the leaven of Christ’s personality began to work within him.22 Chatterjee
asks a pertinent question: “Would it be close[r] to [the] truth to say that
what made an impact on Gandhi was not a package called ‘Christianity’
so much as the person of Christ and his teaching as seen in the
gospels?”23
It is this ‘good knowledge’ of Christianity which helped Gandhi to
understand the basic tenets and common practices of Christians. Above
all, Jesus the teacher and his ethics really attracted him. Gandhi
appreciated and admired Christianity and could be said to have had a
personal love for Jesus whom he claimed to follow in many ways both in
the spirit of Ahimsa and the firmness of Satyagraha.24
Gandhi saw Jesus from the point of view of a Hindu. He opines that
“there is in Hinduism room enough for Jesus.”25 He considered him an
Asiatic Prophet, a coloured man.26 He further states that “I consider
Christ as one of the great teachers of the world. Beyond that I have not
gone.”27 He writes,
I believe that Jesus Christ was one of the greatest teachers of
the world. I consider him as an Incarnation in the Hindu sense of
the term. I do not believe him to be the World Saviour in the
sense in which Orthodox Christianity understands the
expression, but he was a saviour in the same sense as Buddha,
Zoroastrian, Mohammed, and many other teachers were. In
other words, I do not believe in the exclusive divinity of Jesus.28
It should be noted here that over the years he realized a growing sense
of the diversity and richness in the Christian tradition. He saw numerous
elements and tendencies; he did not, therefore, judge Christianity on
the basis of a single sect or movement.29 But his first interaction with
Christianity was in his childhood which he really resented. In later years
he writes, “[Christian missionaries] used to stand in a corner near the
High School and hold forth pouring abuse on Hindus and their gods.” 30
Later in his life both in England and in South Africa he had some
wonderful memories of Christianity which obviously influenced his
Christological Reflections from India 65
ideology to a great extent. Rao says, “There was, indeed, a time when
Gandhi was wavering between Hinduism and Christianity.”31
After his effort to be convinced by the Indian Christians to the truths
of Christianity failed, he felt that for him the path of salvation lies in
Hinduism; and his faith in Hinduism grew deeper. But he remained
“forever indebted” to them for the religious quest that they had awakened
in him.
In relating to Christianity he was convinced that an undogmatic
Christianity, true to the spirit of Jesus, could yet discover and establish
links with the noble characteristics in all religions.32
He was not ready to accept Christianity as the only true religion and
Bible was the only true revelation. He writes,
I could accept Jesus as a martyr, an embodiment of sacrifice
and a Divine teacher and not as the most perfect man [sic] ever
born. His death on the Cross was a great example to the world,
but there was anything mysterious or miraculous virtue in it my
heart could not accept. The pious lives of Christians did not give
me anything that the lives of other faiths had failed to give me. I
had seen in other lives just the same reformation that I had
heard among Christians. Philosophically, there was nothing
extraordinary in Christian principles. From the point of view of
sacrifice, it seemed to me that the Hindus greatly surpassed
Christians. It was impossible for me to regard Christianity as a
perfect religion or the greatest of all religions. 33
‘Christ the Satyagrahi’
It is unfortunate that Gandhi had a rather torrid relationship with Christians
and Christianity. This had its influence on his understanding of Christ
too. However, his reading of the New Testament, and especially that of
the Sermon on the Mount, caught hold of his heart and imagination. He
writes,
[T]he New Testament produced a different impression, especially
the Sermon on the Mount which went straight to my heart. I
compared it with the Gita. The verses, ‘But I say unto you, that
ye resist not evil: but whoever shall smite thee on the right
cheek, turn to him [sic] the other also. And if any man [sic] take
away the coat let him [sic] have the cloak too,’ delighted me
beyond measure and put me in mind of Shamal Bhatt’s ‘For a
bowl of water give a goodly meal,’ etc. my young mind tried to
unify the teaching of the Gita, The Light of Asia and the Sermon
on the Mount. That renunciation was the highest form of religion
appealed to me greatly.34
About the impact of Sermon on the Mount on his life Gandhi writes,
66 Christology
The message of Jesus as I understand it is contained in his
Sermon on the Mount. The Spirit of the Sermon on the Mount
competes almost on equal terms with the Bhagavad Gita for the
domination of my heart. It is that Sermon which has endeared
Jesus to me.35
He might have rejected Christianity as an organized religion but he was
really attracted to the teachings of Jesus.
Like many other Hindu thinkers, Jesus as the person failed to impress
him. The historicity of the person of Jesus is not so significant to him. For
him he is only an illustration of the principle of Christhood. To a query on
his interpretation of the life of Christ, he said, “well, I may say that I do not
accept everything in the gospels as historical truth.”36 He categorically
maintained that,
I may say that I have never been interested in a historical Jesus.
I should not care if it was proved by someone that the man
called Jesus never lived, and that what was narrated in the
Gospels was a figment of the writer’s imagination. For the Sermon
on the Mount would still be true for me. 37
He further reiterates,
Whilst I must not enter into it, I may suggest that God did not
bear the cross only 1900 years ago, but He bears it today, and
He dies and is resurrected from day to day. It would be poor
comfort to the world if it had to depend upon a historical God who
died 2000 years ago. Do not then preach the God of history, but
show Him as He lives today through you.38
Gandhi considered Christ to be a prince among Satyagrahis. Some of
his writings make it clear to us. He writes,
Buddha fearlessly carried the war into the enemy’s camp and
brought down on its knees an arrogant priesthood. Christ drove
out the money-changers from the temple of Jerusalem and drew
down curses from Heaven upon the hypocrites and the
Pharisees. Both were for intensely direct action. But even as
Buddha and Christ chastised they showed unmistakable
gentleness and love being every act of theirs. They would not
raise a finger against their enemies, but would gladly surrender
themselves rather than the truth for which they lived. … Christ
died on the Cross with a crown of thorns on his head defying the
might of a whole empire. And if I raise resistance of a nonviolent
character, I simply and humbly follow in the footsteps of the
great teachers. 39
He was of the opinion that Jesus’ relation with the rulers and religious
authorities of his time should become a model for our living today. He
says,
…. Jesus mixed with the publicans and the sinners neither as
Christological Reflections from India 67
dependent nor as a patron. He mixed with them to serve and to
convert them to a life of truthfulness and purity. But he wiped the
dust off his feet of those places which did not listen to his word.
…. Would Jesus have accepted gifts from moneychangers, taken
from them scholarships for his friends, and advanced loans to
them to ply their nefarious traffic? Was his denunciation of
hypocrites, Pharisees, and Sadducees merely in word? Or did
he not actually invite the people to beware of them and shun
them? 40
During his return visit from England after the round-table talk with the
British Empire he had the opportunity to visit Rome. He visited Vatican
and had a moving experience while gazing at the Cross of Christ. He
writes,
…. And what would not I have given to be able to bow my head
before the living image at the Vatican of Christ Crucified. It was
not without a wrench that I could tear myself away from that
scene of living tragedy. I saw there at once that nations, like
individuals, could only be made through the agony of the Cross
and in no other way. Joy comes not out of infliction of pain on
others, but out of pain voluntarily borne by oneself.41
Gandhi argues that the virtue of mercy, nonviolence, love and truth in
any human can be only tested when they are faced with a ‘pressure-
cooker’ situation. This is the real test of Ahimsa. One who gets oneself
killed out of sheer helplessness, however, can in nowise to be said to
have passed the test. He says,
He who when being kicked bears no anger against his murderer
and even asks God to forgive him [sic] is truly nonviolent. History
relates this to Jesus Christ.
With His dying breath on His Cross He is reported to have said:
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”42
A satyagrahi for Gandhi would stay the course in the midst of every
eventuality. He says,
The theory is that an adequate appeal to the heart never fails.
Seeming failure is not the law of Satyagraha but of incompetence
of the satyagrahi by whatever cause induced. It may not be
possible to give a complete historical instance. The name of
Jesus at once comes to the lips. It is an instance of brilliant
failure. And he has been acclaimed in the West as the prince of
passive resisters. I showed years ago in South Africa that the
adjective “passive” was a misnomer, at least as applied to Jesus.
He was the most active resister known perhaps to history. His
was nonviolence par excellence.43
Reproving the Western civilization he says that it has misunderstood
the resistance Jesus offered against the empire of his time – the Romans.
68 Christology
Jesus’ resistance was nonviolent but transformative. He writes,
Europe mistook the bold and brave resistance, full of wisdom,
by Jesus of Nazareth for passive resistance, as if it was of the
weak. As I read the New Testament for the first time, I detected
no passivity, no weakness about Jesus as depicted in the four
Gospels, and the meaning became clearer to me when I read
Toltstoy’s Harmony of the Gospels and his other kindred writings.
Has not the West paid heavily in regarding Jesus as a passive
resister? Christendom has been responsible for the wars which
put to shame even those described in the Old Testament and
other records, historical or semi-historical. 44
He considered Western Christianity as an extension of Western
imperialism, himsa and materialism. Unless Christianity in India
disassociates itself from this umbilical cord, it would not be able to make
much of an impact in India.
Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya’s Christology
Upadhyaya was born Bhawani Charan Banerjee (1861-1907). It is
through his uncle Kalicharan Banerjee that he was introduced to the
tenets of Christianity. Early in his life he was attracted to Brahmo Samaj
and became a missionary of the Samaj in Sind where he came into
contact with Christian missionaries and became one in 1891 when he
took baptism. He joined the Roman Catholic faith and remained a true
believer. Later in life he became a Christian monk. Later in his life, he
maintained that he was fully a Hindu and at the same time a fully Christian.
Many of his writings are found in two magazines that he started: Sandhya
and Sophia.
His Christology has to be gleaned from his writings scattered in
many sources. One of his famous Christological hymns is:
Hymn of the Incarnation
The transcendent Image of Brahman,
Blossomed and mirrored in the full-to-overflowing
Eternal Intelligence –
Victory to God, the God-Man.
Child of the pure Virgin,
Guide of the Universe, infinite in Being
Yet Beauteous with relations,
Victory to God, the God-Man.
Ornament of the Assembly
Christological Reflections from India 69
Of saints and sages, Destroyer of fear, Chastiser
Of the Spirit of Evil, –
Victory to God, the God-Man.
Dispeller of weakness
Of soul and body, pouring out life for others,
Whose deeds are holy,
Victory to God, the God-Man.
Priest and Offerer
Of his own soul in agony, whose Life is Sacrifice,
Destroyer of sin’s poison, –
Victory to God, the God-Man.
Tender, beloved,
Soother of the human heart, Ointment of the eyes,
Vanquisher of fierce death, –
Victory to God, the God-Man.
His Christology is very orthodox and he uses Hindu terminologies to
explain the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Person of Jesus Christ
Christ is the Image of God (Brahman) and in him the eternal Word (Cit –
intelligence), the fullness of the Godhead, who is the true Nara-Hari45
(Man-God). He is the infinite, the upholder of the universe, and yet is
born of a Virgin; though he is ‘infinite in being’ (nirguna), yet he is also
‘with relations’ (saguna) and so personal and knowable. 46 Following
Keshab Chander Sen, he regards Christ as the divine Wisdom, the Cit
of Saccidânanda.
Work of Christ
His language is very poetic and imagery oriented, rich with biblical and
Indian concepts. He writes: Jesus’ deeds are holy, showing the essential
connection between God and morality. He pours out his life for others, in
agony of soul, giving himself as sacrifice, he who is both priest and
victim. Christ destroys the poison of sin by drinking the cup himself.
In no uncertain terms he affirms that Jesus Christ is fully God and
fully human, ‘the transcendent image of Brahman’ but also ‘Child of the
pure Virgin,’ and to express this fact of the two natures united in one
Christ he often uses for Jesus the name Nara-Hari (Man-God). His
uniqueness lies in the fact that he has given a clear description of the
70 Christology
interrelation of the divine and human Christ without using western terms,
either ancient or modern according to Boyd.47
Incarnation or Avatâra?
According to the Vaisnava tradition of Hinduism God, Isvara, from time
to time comes down to earth as an avatâra, in order to save humanity
and destroy the evil. Bhagavadgita portrays the best picture of this
doctrine in its classical sense where Krishna says to Arjuna:
Whenever there is a decline of law, O Arjuna, and an outbreak of
lawlessness, I incarnate myself. For the protection of the good,
for the destruction of the wicked and the establishment of the
law I am born from age to age. 48
Upadhyay’s major contribution to Indian Christian theology was his
reasoning that Jesus as not an Avatâra within the Hindu pantheon. M. M.
Thomas denies Upadhyay ever used the word Avatâra to describe
Christ’s incarnation, “because Avatâra were a lower order of divinity
than Sat and because there were many Avatâra who descended to the
world to destroy wickedness and restore the established moral order.” 49
He rejected such a description of Jesus primarily because he considered
Jesus unique – the Parabrahman, God incarnate of whom there can be
no none higher. Upadhyaya writes,
The doctrine of the Christian incarnation is altogether different
and is wholly a matter of faith. The theory that an incarnate
saviour, understood in the Christian sense, is as necessary as
the sunlight is to the eye, is erroneous. All Christian theologians
hold that human nature cries for redemption but cannot
instinctively conceive of the scheme of redemption . . . [This
redemption] is a pure condescension, and is not a necessity of
nature, though nature too is of God. [So there is] the sectarian
missionary device to oust Krishna from the Gita and bring in
Christ instead, is an historical error, and also a theological blunder
whether considered from the Hindu or Christian point of view.50
Upadhyaya maintained that Hindu Satchitananda (Brahman)
corresponds to Christian Trinity. Using advaita Vedanta as the tool to
interpret Trinity he proposed God the Father as Sat (Truth); the Son, the
Logos, the second Person of Trinity as Chit (Intelligence); and the third
Person, the Holy Spirit as Ananda (Bliss). He observes that advaita
Vedanta is a conducive philosophy for Indian theology because it
maintains that among everything that exists, God’s existence is the only
essential; all the rest have conditional existence.51 This has problem for
an Indian Christology that takes seriously the realities of the world. It is
observed that he did not explore the liberating dimensions of the Hindu
culture in relation to the realities of Indian life. For him, revelation is
Christological Reflections from India 71
beyond the natural. Therefore, salvation and revelation remain, for him,
at the metaphysical level. He failed to see revelation as the encounter of
Christ with the totality of human life.52 His argument for a metaphysical
Christ made him unable to see the evils of the caste system.53 His
rejection of the historical Jesus, of Jesus the Avatâra and his upper-
caste Brahmin background cause his failure to address the social realities
of India.54 Such a one-sided Christology fails to make Jesus real to the
Indian context.
Vengal Chakkarai’s Christology
Another prominent figure in Indian Christian Theology was Vengal
Chakkarai (1880-1958).55 He was from a very wealthy Hindu family and
was a lawyer by profession. He was a lay theologian but he exerted a
great influence on the Indian Christian thinking. He was a prominent
member of what became known as the ‘Rethinking Christianity’
movement. This group was concerned with redefining the Christian faith
in Indian terms and relating it to the cultural heritage of the country. His
theology was closer to Keshub Chandra Sen’s interpretation of
Satchitananda (as being/truth; awareness & intelligence; and bliss/joy).
However, he reinterpreted Satchitananda as: sat – the unity of the
universal spirit of beauty; cit – love; ananda – truth. He maintained that
Jesus is the Avatâra of God. His Christology is called a ‘Christology of the
Spirit.’ He writes, “Jesus was the most egoless person known in history,
therefore the most universal of all.”56 It is said that he inherited this
thought from Sen. He connects Christology with the ethical demands of
Jesus. Union with Christ is to choose the path of egoless Christianity. He
laments that modern theology has over emphasized on reason and has
reduced the historical Jesus to a “mere dialectician, a reformer, and an
asserter of messianic claims.”57 Instead he calls us to receive “the
immortal Christ as the Universal Spirit of beauty, love and truth (sat, chit,
and anandam) and not as a separate individual spirit.”58
Orevillo-Montenegro rightly points out the problem with Chakkarai’s
Christology. She writes,
Chakkarai’s ‘ego-less Jesus’ may pose some danger to women.
It could be used to reinforce the passivity and subservience that
patriarchy has already instilled in women. It may promote
internalization of oppression that makes women lose their sense
of self-worth and personhood. The concept of an ‘ego-less Jesus’
glosses over the suffering of women, children, and the vulnerable
and may encourage them to sacrifice their bodies at the altar of
male-constructed structures in the name of Christ. It may trap
people in the abyss of resignation and fear.59
72 Christology
This is the danger of glossing over the historical particularity of Jesus in
christologizing in the Indian context. Chakkarai’s Christology was not
able to connect the universal spirit of Satchitananda with the ugly social
realities of India namely: caste system, class, gender inequality,
ecological crisis etc.
Aiyarudai Jesudasan Appasamy’s Christology
Appasamy (1891-1975) was a former bishop of the Church of South
India (CSI, 1950-59) and a leading Tamil Christian theologian of the last
century. He wrote his doctoral thesis on: “The Mysticism of the Fourth
Gospel in its Relation to the Hindu Bhakti Literature.” He was particularly
influenced by his deep friendship with Sadhu Sundar Singh. He argued
for an indigenous Christianity. As a philosophical school he made use
of visisthadvaita, the devotional tradition in Hinduism to understand
Christ.60 He challenged the traditional Chalcedonian tendency and the
Hindu monistic (advaitic) tendency which view the union between the
Father and the Son as a metaphysical one. He sees the union as one
that is moral and functional. Through bhakti (devotion) to Jesus one can
experience the union with God.
He did not accept the concept of Avatâra for Christ. He makes several
distinction between Avatâra and incarnation of Christ:
1. In Hinduism Avatâra is repeated whereas the incarnation of
Christ is once for all.
2. In Hinduism Avatâra is either partial or incomplete. Such a view
is incompatible with the Christian view of the incarnate Christ
who is the incarnation of the whole being of God, and in whom
the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily.
3. In Hinduism Avatâra returns back to its original state after its
purpose is over, whereas the incarnation of Christ is permanent.
4. In Hinduism Avatâra arises to destroy the wicked, whereas the
incarnation of Christ is to seek and to save the lost.
5. In Hinduism Avatâra is mere theophany, whereas the incarnation
of Christ is real and historical.
6. In Hinduism Avatâra can be apparent, whereas the incarnation
of Christ historically grounded.
Appasamy argues that Christian incarnation of Christ is once for all and
unique. He writes,
We believe that Jesus was the Avatâra. God lived on the earth
as a man [sic] only once and that was as Jesus …. It is our firm
Christian belief that among all the great religious figures in the
world there is no one except Jesus who could be regarded as
an Incarnation of God. 61
Christological Reflections from India 73
Unlike Upadhyaya’s Christology Appasamy did not gloss over the
evils of the societies. However, we feel that bhakti to Jesus alone will
end up in spiritualizing the realities of the world. The danger of hushing
up the historical realities will be very high.
Pandipeddi Chenchiah’s Christology
Another important figure in Indian Christian Theology is the lay theologian,
Pandipeddi Chenchiah (1886-1959) who along with Chakkaraia and
others were leading members of ‘Rethinking Christianity’ movement.
He was the Chief Justice of Pudukkottai State in the erstwhile British
India. He observed that Indian theology not simply as having the limited
function of translating the core of faith in Indian terms, but as having the
function of actually reassessing those early formulations on which the
Christian faith is based. For him the raw fact of Christ was the only
unalterable core of Christianity.62
His theology is described as the theology of the New Creation. He
remarked, “We need to shift Christianity in India from creed to conduct,
from conduct to new life.”63 He emphasized on Christ as the ‘New Man,’
on the Resurrection and Pentecost. He saw Christ as the one totally new
factor that emerged in cosmic history and as the key to the transformation
of humanity and the world. Christ is the ‘central point of all religions’ in
the sense that Jesus the Christ, the reality of the new being and giver of
creative energy, is the key to the transformation of humanity, nature, and
the whole universe.64 It is in this the universality of Jesus is understood.
There is a similarity with Chakkarai’s understanding of Jesus’ humanity.
Nevertheless, Chakkarai’s Jesus is the Avatâra, the human manifestation
of God, while Chenchiah’s Jesus is the historic figure, the raw ‘cosmic
fact’ that reveals the full meaning in a cosmic context.65
Chenchiah’s Christology is an inclusive Christology. 66 He
considered Hinduism as his ‘spiritual mother.’ Hinduism had nurtured
him to discern spiritual greatness and had led him to grasp the meaning
of Christ.
He considered Christ as a ‘creative energy.’ Orevillo-Montenegro
writes that this concept is an useful tool in relating Christ to the various
religious faiths of Asia. However, she also feels that this view could also
lead to anthropocentrism.67 For Chenchiah, “in man [sic], as in Jesus, a
new creative factor has entered creation. Man [sic] has been the centre
and the creator of a new order by virtue of the new life which is his.” 68
Orevillo-Montenegro has rightly pointed out a weakness of Chenchiah’s
Christology. An anthropocentric centred Christology has done much
violence to women and the earth.69 It has provided the theological basis
74 Christology
for male domination over women and the earth and its living beings. His
Christology has been silent to the historical and social realities of India
including the curse of caste system.
Paul David Devanandan’s Christology
Devanandan70 (1901-62) was an ordained presbyter of the Church of
South India (CSI). He was the first director of Christian Institute for the
Study Religion and Society (CISRS) in Bangalore. Because of the
influence of the prominent Christian nationalist K. T. Paul on Devanandan
he was determined to take full part, as a Christian, in nation-building
activities.71
After his studies at Yale, he returned back to India to teach philosophy
and the history of religions at United Theological College (UTC),
Bangalore. As a young theologian he was influenced by both Barth and
Kraemer, though later he objected to many of their view points. His
theology was not as radical or new as that of Upadhyaya. “On the contrary,
his attitude to the basic affirmations of the Creed is impeccably orthodox,
and we find little that is especially ‘Indian’ in what he says about Scripture,
the atonement or the church” writes Boyd.72 He further writes, “he is not
seeking to ‘adapt’ the Christian message to Hinduism but rather so to
understand the inner working of Hinduism that the may be able to show
his Hindu friends the points at which their beliefs can find true meaning
only in Christ.”73 His adoption of Hindu philosophical and religious
discourse of the non-Christian faith was functional. These were mere
instruments through which gospel could be translated and interpreted
to the Indian populace.
His Christology is an orthodox Christology which is to be translated
into the Indian context. He placed more emphasis on the metaphysical
notion of the Christ than stressing on the Jesus of Nazareth. He differed
with Chakkarai’s view about people becoming ‘Christ-like.’ For him
‘perfect manhood’ of Jesus was a ‘minor incident in the eternal fact of
Christ.74 The ethics of Jesus were ideal, not practical. And the historical
facts of Christ must be substantiated by the eternal fact.75 Even though
he spoke of Christ as Shakti, the bottom line for Devanandan was that in
Jesus of Nazareth, the Word of God has been manifest unequivocally
and finally. For him the finality of Christ has been decided ‘once and for
all.’
Devanandan’s idea of God as personal has implication for
Christological formulations in India. He argues that God is Ultimate Truth,
but maintains that he is also fully personal (unlike the Vedântic teaching
that Brahman is ultimately nirguna), and points out that the biblical
Christological Reflections from India 75
phrase, ‘The Lord thy God,’ in effect equates Isvara with Brahman.76
However, he maintains that God is not personal in a human sense. He
views God’s personality as incomprehensible and surpasses all our
views of personality.77 Now the question arises, how can God who seems
to be personal understand the realities of the world? God in Jesus has
encountered the realities of the world. Such a Christological affirmation
makes sense to the people of India.
M. M. Thomas’ Christology
Christologizing process in India took a sharp turn from 1960s onwards.
A prominent Indian thinker of this period was M. M. Thomas (1916-96).78
He found it important to reflect on the significance of Jesus the Christ not
only in the realm of religions but also in the secular, political world.79 The
realities of modern India made a deep impact on Thomas. He valued the
enlightenment inspired secularization of nature. However, he also saw
the negative side of it when human beings divinized science and
technology and thus became slaves of their own tools. He feels that
Christ must liberate human beings from this modern slavery too. For
him, the metaphysical Christ of the traditional theologies – Indian and
Western alike – is powerful in the face of this condition.80
This was the period in India and elsewhere when major efforts
were put in to understand Christ from a pluralistic perspective and his
message’s universality was studied. The notions of ‘Unknown Christ,’81
‘Unbound Christ,’82 ‘Anonymous Christ,’83 and ‘Acknowledged Christ’84
were put forth to validate the universal Christ. But for Thomas, the historical
cross of Jesus is still the decisive criterion for discerning the stirrings of
positive responses of faiths to the universal cross, upon which hangs
the world’s suffering.85 Jesus on the Cross exposed the adversaries of
God and the misdirection of humanity. Christ crucified is the ‘prototype of
true humanhood’ in the historical realm and becomes a source of
humanization for homo sapiens.86 He said that in Jesus, God meets
humanity because Christ is at work even in secular and non-Christian
movements, in their creative struggle for freedom and for an independent
home for the Asian spirit. For him the revolution in the world history
especially in Asia have within them “the promise of Christ for a fuller and
richer life for man [sic] and society.”87 Thomas remained convinced of the
finality of the crucified Messiah even though he validity of other secular
messiahs. The gospel is about what God has done in the incarnation,
life and death of Jesus of Nazareth in one particular historical moment.
This event gives all history a spiritual relevance and affirms God’s act
“through, in, and for Jesus Christ.”88
76 Christology
The Christological contribution of M. M. Thomas is that his theological
anthropology laid the foundation for a more active theological
engagement in India.89 Bird would argue that Thomas became the
theological signpost for emergence of Dalit theology in India.90
Sebastian Kappen’s Christology
Taking cues from Thomas, Indian Jesuit priest Sebastian Kappen (1924-
1993)91 proposed a Christology using the revolutionary message of
Jesus in the face of the social realities and human life in Asia.92 As his
methodological position, he focused more on the historical, secular
Jesus who addresses the social problems of Indian society than on
traditional speculative (both Indian and Western) Christologies. Jesus
for him is the “unique, intense, unparalleled manifestation of the
transcendent in the flow of history.”93
For Kappen, Jesus is the counter-culture prophet, one who creates
a liberating culture and whose allies are the social and political forces
that fight the oppressive castes and capitalism.94 His proposal is for a
secular Jesus who has impact beyond the boundaries of Christianity
because he lived what he taught, made history with God the centre of
his life, and met God in the heart of the world. His death is a consequence
of his work for existential liberation.95
One notes in his christologizing that he addressed the issues of
class, race, caste, gender, ecology and other social realities. For him,
the Jesus of history, unlike the dogmatic Christ, initiated a humanizing
praxis and proclaimed equality of all humanity. Jesus’ teachings resonate
with Asian sensibilities, that God reveals “himself not only in, but also as
nature and history,” and even beyond it.96
Kalagara Subba Rao’s Christology
Rao (1922-1981) was the leader of a Hindu-Christian Movement from
Andhra Pradesh. He was known for his devotional songs and critique of
institutional church. According to him, in 1942 he had a vision of Christ
when he was an atheist which turned his whole course of life. Along with
the vision he received the gift of healing. He is particularly well-known
for his devotional Telugu songs which he sung with his tambura (a long-
necked stringed instrument) at various devotional meetings. His theology
is mostly found in these devotional renderings.97
Boyd calls the religion of Subba Rao as Christo-centric mysticism.98
His dedication to Christ was complete and central. In his name alone he
performed the healing miracles. He writes,
The very name of JESUS inspires me. The moment I hear that
Christological Reflections from India 77
Name, the moment I see Jesus on the Cross, I am overwhelmed
with something I can’t describe…. For him I live, and for him I die.
That is my religion. That is my baptism – that is my philosophy –
that is my heaven – that is my everything. I need nothing more.99
Boyd writes, “for him, the meaning of faith is to become one with Jesus,
and therefore to follow his example in everything, especially in loving
service, including the ministry of healing.”100
Christification is the goal of Christianity. Becoming Christ should be
the aim of Christians. He writes, “By religion and baptism you became a
Christian. Don’t you know that you too must become Christ by living like
Jesus?”101
Baago opines that even though Subba Rao is Christo-centric in his
approach he would not consider him God but a gurudev or a sadguru
who brings salvation.102 However, his own writings portrays a different
picture. He had a genuine experience of the Christ event. His approach
perhaps presents a genuine Indian, or rather Hindu, approach to a
genuine encounter with Jesus, according to Boyd.103 According to M. M.
Thomas, in him we find, “a Christ-centred Hindu church of Christ which
transforms Hindu thought and life from within.”104
Rao accepts the Vedantic idea of unreal world and its subjugation
to mâyâ. Salvation or mukti therefore, is from the realization of oneness
with the Real that is Christ where the distinction of “I” and “thou” are
removed. This Christian Vedanta is balanced by a whole hearted
commitment to unselfish service of others. Unity with Christ, the Truth, is
to be found by overcoming the selfishness of the body, and in this way
we receive ‘release’ – a release that sends us to the world for service of
others.105 For Rao this service of humanity is through spiritual healing in
the name of Jesus.
Christological formulations saw a paradigm shift with the advent of
Liberation theologies of Latin America. Return to Historical Jesus, Priority
of Praxis over theology, and God in Christ’s preferential option for the
poor became the foremost Christological focal points. In India too these
became the methodological starting point of christologizing. Our next
section deals with some of these liberative Christologies.
Christology from a Dalit Perspective
Dalit Theology
Dalit theology is an Indian contextual theology. It is an experiential
theology. It incorporates Dalit story and Dalit struggles as important
theological categories. The aim of Dalit theology is the realization of
Dalit liberation from all dehumanizing oppressive structures.
78 Christology
Dalit Christology ideates the liberating experience through the
person and work of Jesus Christ.
The term Dalit has its root in three oldest languages of the world,
namely Hebrew, Sanskrit and Akkadian.106 The word ‘Dalit’ is derived
from the Sanskrit word dal, means ‘broken’ and ‘down-trodden’. A. P.
Nirmal, can be considered as the “father of Dalit theology.” He explains,
the Dalits are 1) the broken, the torn, the rent, the burst, the split; 2) the
opened, the expanded; 3) the bisected; 4) the driven asunder, the
dispelled, the scattered; 5) the downtrodden, the crushed, the destroyed;
and 6) the manifested, the displayed.107
The sociological structuring of the Hindu India was based on caste.
The society was divided into four categories: Brahmins (priests),
Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (traders), and Shudras (workers). But
there were millions who were outside these categories – the ‘Dalits.’
‘Dalits’ were branded as avarnas, Panchamas (fifth caste), chandlas
(doomed people), Untouchables, Depressed class and so on by
varnashrama dharma (the four fold caste division), high caste Hindus
and the British Government respectively.
‘Dalit’ theology emerged as a theological proposition in the early
1980s. It was Arvind P. Nirmal’s (faculty at UTC, Bangalore) lecture
entitled ‘Towards a Shudra Theology’ to the Carey Society of the United
Theological College, Bangalore, in April 1981 108 that paved the way for
‘Dalit’ theologizing in Indian context. Nirmal did not use the word ‘Dalit’
in his presentation, this paper provided a strong foundation for the Dalit
theology which emerged subsequently. Wilson, marked a clear shift in
the direction of Indian Christian Theology from a Dalit perspective. He
was the first one to use ‘Dalit’ as a category to do theology.109 Some of
the pioneers of Dalit theology are A. P. Nirmal, M. E. Prabhakar, James
Massey, K. Wilson, M. Azariah, Abraham Ayrookuzhiyil, V. Devasahayam,
F. J. Balasundaram, and J. C. Webster.
Dalit theology is both an ‘identity theology’ and ‘counter theology’.
As an identity theology, it highlights the distinctive identity of Dalit
people.110 Prabhakar writes, “Dalit theology is a particular people’s
theology i.e., that of the Dalits, therefore a theology of the Dalits, by the
Dalits and for the Dalits.”111 As an identity theology, Dalit theology is the
theological reflection on Dalit experiences, Dalit sufferings, Dalit history,
Dalit Culture and Dalit emancipation exclusively by Dalits. There is a
methodological exclusivism proposed in doing Dalit theology.112 As a
‘counter theology’ Dalit theology challenges traditional Indian Christian
theology and marks a radical paradigm shift by rejecting any inclination
towards Brahmanic traditions113 which resulted in maintaining the status
Christological Reflections from India 79
quo of caste system in the Indian society. It also challenges the dominant
nature of traditional Indian Christian theology and thereby discarding
the oppressive elements of Hindu religion which had historically denied
Dalit humanity. Prabhakar writes,
[I]t [Dalit theology] is a new theology because it is from below
and uses Dalit peoples languages and expressions, their stories
and songs of sufferings and triumphs, popular wisdom including
their values, proverbs, folk lore and myths and so on to interpret
their history and culture and to articulate a faith to live by and to
act on.114
Dalit Christology
Dalit theology today is identified as a major contextual theology in India.
However, not much is written on Dalit Christology. Here we mention few
Christological comments of the leading Dalit proponents.
Christology from the Dalit perspective expresses the Dalit realities
through the paradigm of the life of Jesus Christ. It interprets the relevance
of the person and work of Jesus Christ to a marginalized, oppressed
and de-humanized people; the Dalits. It is a re- interpretation of
Christology in Dalit categories. “The articulation of Dalit Christology is
inextricably is interlinked with the issue of Dalitness” writes Rajkumar.115
Prabhakar writes, “What the Dalits think of Jesus Christ and God’s saving
act in and through him is integrally linked with their dehumanised social
existence and their hope for a future in Christ, freed from all inhumanity
and injustice.”116 Dalit Christology is what create within the Dalits a
realization, a ‘consciousness’ of their own intrinsic worth, ‘their full
humanness’ through Christ. What is implicit in Dalit Christology is the
attempt to make the Dalits realize their humanness and dignity through
the Dalitness of Jesus Christ.117 Nirmal states, “Jesus of India is in the
midst of the liberation struggle of the Dalits of India.”118 Jesus Christ
himself was a Dalit.119 It is his Dalitness that helps in understanding the
mystery of his divine-human unity.120 Jesus’ socio-cultural and economic
situation, his ‘dubious’ ancestry portrays his Dalit condition. He was
called as a carpenter’s son. He was mocked, jeered, and crucified
(cursed death). His cross and resurrection become symbols for victory
for Jesus over the dehumanizing structures. Jesus openly identified
with the poor, wretched and the outcast(e) of the society. Nazareth
manifesto (Luke 4:18-19) is used to point out that “the gospel Jesus
brought was the gospel for Dalits and not for non-Dalits.”121 Nirmal
remarks that in our exodus to Jesus Christ, we have had a liberating
experience.122
As noted earlier, Dalit theologians have not systematized a major
80 Christology
Dalit Christology. Rajkumar rightly points out, “Dalit theology doesn’t
offer the necessary Christic impetus which will make involvement in
transformation a pragmatic possibility.”123 Dalit Christology has to pave
the way for Indian Christologies to identify and to expose the evils
structures of servitude in Indian society. “… Dalit Christology had the
potential to operate as a palliative inuring the Dalits to their existing
suffering through marginalization and make the Dalits masochistic in
their attitude towards suffering.”124 He proposes the paradigm of Jesus,
the healer in the midst of social segregation on the basis of notions of
pure and impure in the Indian context.125
Christology from Tribal (North-East India) Perspective
Tribal Theology
Broadly speaking there are two different kinds of tribals in India: Adivasis
(the tribals from the plains) and tribals from north-east India hills. Adivasis
had some kind of contact with the prevalent religion – Hinduism, however
there was very little contact between tribals from north-east India. The
north-east India hill tribes with the exception of a few are all Christian
converts. Christianity provided them with access to education and
modernization.
United Nation Sub-commission on the Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities puts forth a working definition of indigenous/
tribal people:
Indigenous communities, people and nations, are those which
having an historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial
societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves
distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in
those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-
dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve,
develop and transmit to future generation their ancestral
territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued
existence as peoples in accordance with their own cultural
patterns, social institution and legal system.126
The tribal communities in north-east India are represented by three
major racial groups: (i) the Sino-Tibetan communities who began to
move into the region as early as the third millennium BC; the Boro-Bodo
tribes in the Brahmaputra Valley and other tribal groups in Arunachal
Pradesh trace back their origin to that early migration; (ii) the Siamese
section of the Mongoloids migrated around eighth century BC, and later
the Thai tribes entered the region, established the Ahom kingdom, and
ruled over Assam; the Kuki-Chin tribes also came and settled in the
southern region; (iii) a large number of northern tribals – the Mundaris,
Christological Reflections from India 81
Hos, Santalis, Oraons, Gonds, and others were brought to Assam by the
Britishers to work in tea estates. Major tribes in north-east India are:
Austro-Asiatic (Khasis, Jaintias); Bodo (Dimasa, Boro, Kachari, Rabha,
Garo, Ghutia, and Tripuri); Dravidian (Dom and Kvivartas); Indo-Burmese
(Nagas); Indo-Tibetan (Miri, Mishmi, Nishi, Akhas, Apatani, Adi, Monpa,
Nocte, Wancho, Tangsa); Kuki-Lushai (Mizo, Hmar, Halam, Thadou,
Ralte, Paiti, Pawi, Lakher, Riang); Chin-Kuki (Moriang, Phadang, Mikirs,
Amri); and Indo-Aryan and Shan-Tai (Assamese, Ahom, Khamti, Phakial,
Aitonia).127
Indigenous/Tribal theology is a newcomer and this emerging
theology among the alienated and marginalized minorities may be called
‘Indigenous peoples or tribal theology.’ It is a people’s theology born out
of the experiences of injustice and exploitation in the context of their
assertion for right and identity. It is also a liberation and resistance
theology.128 It attempts to express Christian faith in the context of the
socio-cultural, religious, traditional, and liturgical through pattern of the
indigenous people. It uses the experiences of oppressions, and
hardships; traditional stories, myths, symbols, dances, songs, and their
connectedness to land and environment as sources of doing theology.
Minz and Longchar explains tribal theology in the following words:
In terms of doing theology, the point of departure of the tribal
theology from other contextual theologies is that the tribal theology
seeks liberation from the perspective of ‘space.’ In their search
for liberation, the issue of space is central and crucial in doing
theology. A peculiar character of tribal world view is that the
tribal people’s culture, religion, spirituality, and even the Supreme
Being cannot be conceived without ‘creation/land’ or ‘space.’
Humans always understand themselves as ‘an integral part of
creation/land and not apart from it.’ 129
Tribal theologizing, therefore, has to interact with these if it has to become
relevant contextual theology. The question of justice, identity, and human
dignity therefore is crucial for tribal theology.
Tribal Christology
For reasons unknown there is so little written on Christology from the
north-east Indian tribal perspective. Shohe opines that the strand of
Christianity that was preached to the tribals in north-east India too has
its influence on its Christological formulations. These were more from
pietistic influence.130 Probably that explains the dearth of Christological
formulations from the north-east India tribal context.131 Here we present
some of the available Christological formulations from a Naga
82 Christology
perspective.132
Vashum133 argues that vision of tribal/indigenous theology is to
become a self-theologizing community. Such an effort needs moving
beyond the existing norms of Christian theologizing. He uses local/
indigenous cultural categories to construct a Christology of culture and
liberation. He proposes Jesus as the Rooster.
Every society identifies a special or sacred animal/bird that
symbolizes their identity. For the Naga’s, Rooster is a sacred animal/
bird. As a community Nagas have had various observances and
ceremonies. Animals/birds were often used as sacrificial offerings. Of all
these, the rooster was by far the most valued sacrificial object. It was
regarded as something that possessed the right qualities for being a
sacrifice: purity, aesthetic beauty, and physical charm. “A rooster is
decorated with beautiful ornaments from head to toe. He not only looks
gorgeous, he also appears very gracious at the same time.” It is also
considered one of the most alert, intelligent and humble creature. Humility
was an important trait, a blameless rooster was often chosen for
sacrifice.134
Rooster Sacrifice for Human Protection
Rooster sacrifice was conducted for restoring wellness and harmony
among individuals or community. When an individual was sick, the family
members of the sick would invite the khanong (Tangkul Naga) – the
medical practitioner to conduct a sacrificial ceremony (Tanula – soul-
calling ceremony among the Ao Nagas). A blameless rooster is taken to
the outskirts of the village, it is then tossed up into the air and released
into the jungle by the medical practitioner while reciting these words:
“Take this rooster instead of [the suffering individual] and release the
soul immediately.” It is expected that the rooster would not return back to
the village, which was considered a good omen. The sick would then
recover. But if it returns back then it is understood that the sick would
never recover from the illness.135
For the purification of the whole community too rooster was used as
a sacrificial object. Genna, is the purification ceremony practiced by the
Nagas. The medical practitioner along with the members of the village
would move to the outskirts of the village and toss up the rooster into the
air and release the same to the jungle while asking the Sacred Being’s
blessings upon the community. The “releasing” of the rooster meant its
imminent death.136 The whole purpose of the ceremony was the
purification of the village from all kinds of evil and protection from future
epidemics and calamities.
Christological Reflections from India 83
Rooster was also a mythic figure that was responsible for persuading
the Sacred Being to provide sunlight to the world thereby maintaining
the duration of day and night.137
Jesus and the Rooster
Vashum uses rooster as a representative of Jesus and begins with
rooster and looks unto Jesus’ sacrifice as a relational aspect from the
scripture. He says,
In the sacrifice of the rooster and the death of Jesus Christ, the
underlying significance is that both the rooster and Jesus died
so that the people might live. There are, of course, limitations in
the use of the rooster as the representative of Jesus Christ.
While, the rooster sacrifice is temporary and significance is
limited to the particular community on whose behalf the sacrifice
is made, the death of Jesus Christ is permanent and has universal
appeal. However, notwithstanding the limitations, there is a great
deal of significance attached to the vicarious suffering of the
rooster and Jesus on whose behalf they both sacrificed their
lives.138
Jesus, the Elder Brother
Vashum, offers another metaphor – the Elder Brother to explain the
significance of Jesus. He says, “…the Gospel writers describe the status
of Jesus as being the ‘firstborn son’ (cf. Lk. 2:7; Mt. 1:25). As firstborn son,
‘he constituted not only the continuation of the family but also the
continuity and permanence of Israel’s covenant relationship with God.”139
He further says: “Jesus Christ is truly an ‘elder brother’ whose life
demonstrated the qualities that were expected of an elder brother. Jesus
is the elder brother par excellence, for in him the desires and
expectations of an elder brother came into its fulfilment.”140
Jesus, the Ancestor
Vashum offers yet another metaphor in speaking of Christ – the Ancestor.
He writes,
The ancestor and the elder brother exercised a critical role of
being mediators. The elder brother being the eldest son in the
family was charged with religious duties including offering
sacrifices to the Supreme Being on behalf of the family. On the
death of the father the eldest was expected to carry out all family
ceremonies and sacrifices. On the other hand, the ancestor
played a mediating role between the spiritual world and the
living.141
He further writes,
In the worldview of the tribals, the notion of the community
84 Christology
encompassed not only the living but also the dead and the spiritual
beings; the ancestors were an integral part of the community.
Additionally, as a life giving source in the sense that through the
ancestors generations of human societies have come to exist,
the ancestors were closer to the Source.142
He also writes, “In adapting the role of Jesus to the tribal cultural context,
one can substitute Jesus as the Ancestor who represents the mystery of
the invisible God.”143
Christology from Adivasi Perspective
In generic sense, the term ‘Adivasi’ in Hindi, means ‘tribal.’ In Sanskrit
adi means original and vasi means inhabitant – meaning the original
inhabitants. They are also known as indigenous peoples, moolvasis,
aboriginals, hill tribes, ethnic minorities and nationalities. However in
course of time the term ‘Adivasi’ has gained specific popular connotation
– signifying such tribes as Kharias, Mundas, Oraons, Santals and a few
other tribes of North India, particularly centering on the Chotanagpur
plateau, the original habitat of the Adivasis. Hence, they are also called
Chotanagpuri Adivasis to distinguish them from other tribals in India.
The adivasis live on the fringes of Indian society in areas that were
generally not integrated into the states of historic India, often dwelling in
forests, jungles, and hills. Adivasi languages and cultures differ from
those of the dominant Indian communities, and there is tremendous
diversity among the adivasis across India. They were not part of the
traditional caste system and have no internal caste distinctions in their
heritage, but they frequently suffer discrimination from being excluded
from Indian society. There were repeated protests and rebellions against
outside forces throughout the period of British and independent rule; at
the centre of the disputes were land, forest, and water, together with
cultural and social domination by outside forces, whether British or Indian
elites.144 Kujur explains that Christians played a positive role in their
overall upliftment:
Contact with friendly European missionaries and Christians
injected new courage into the adivasis who had so far been
dejected and felt helpless. They were no longer submissive to
their lot but stood up against the oppression of the landlords and
asserted their rights.145
The adivasis’ traditional religious practices are not those of Brahmin
Hinduism. Some Hindus may contest the claim that tribals are not Hindus.
There has been many mass-conversions among the adivasis. Over the
years this has become a major contention between Christians and Hindu
right-wingers.
Christological Reflections from India 85
Adivasi Theology
Very few adivasi Christians have received formal theological education.
Therefore, most of the theological writings on adivasi Christian life and
practice comes from people who are not themselves adivasis.146 There
are preconceived notions that adivasis are not exposed to scientific and
logical thinking, and are, therefore, incapable of any conceptualization
and theologizing. This colonial bias has been responsible for resistance
to the evolution of an adivasi theology in the seminaries.147 Therefore,
very few written works are available on adivasi theology.148
Kujur identifies the methodological starting point of an adivasi
theology: the gripping experience of brokenness and disorientation
resulting from the exodus of adivasis due to displacement, migration,
and exploitation, simultaneously accompanied by an orientation toward
liberative and celebrative dimensions of life.149 He further explains that
the inseparability of religion and culture is the hallmark of adivasi
theology. Adivasi religion is natural, demonstrative, and descriptive,
with the divine manifesting itself in and through natural phenomena
and social relationships. It is unlike the formal Christian theologizing,
which is dogmatic, revelatory, and written. Inclusivity is another unique
mark of adivasi world-view. There are interrelations between the
supernatural and the natural. “The biggest contribution that adivasi
theology can make to the world is its cosmo-centric vision making space
for pluralism, justice, communion, and communitarianism,” writes Kujur.150
Jesus, the Parmadivasi
Following are few thoughts on Christology written by Francis Minj.
Unfortunately, this is the only source we could trace on adivasi
Christology. The author has creatively presented Jesus as the
Parmadivasi.
Minj insists on the importance of interpreting Jesus Christ
contextually in relation to adivasi life and culture. He interprets Jesus
Christ as “Paramadivasi” in the context of five tribes in the state of
Jharkhand in central India: Munda, Oraon, Kharia, Ho, and Santals.
“Paramadivasi” is based on the three Sanskrit roots: “param” means
“supreme”; “âdi” means “primordial”; and “vasi” means “dweller.” “Just as
the adivasis are the original dwellers, so too Jesus the word can be
metaphorically construed as Paramadivasi, the Supreme Primordial
Dweller, the image of the invisible God, and the firstborn of all creation
(Col. 1:15).”151
Minj relates Jesus Christ to the custom of venerating ancestors as
role models, protectors, and mediators between God and humans. As
86 Christology Christological Reflections from India 87

firstborn of all creation, Jesus is “the greatest ancestor,” but he also
revises the existing notion of ancestorship. He says, “Through his violent
death Jesus challenges Adivasi cultural taboos. His murder would
disqualify him ancestorship, but he defies the Adivasi taboo of denying
ancestorship to those who die violently.”152
Minj observes that the existing adivasi categories need
reinterpretation if Christ is to be understood from an adivasi perspective.
Traditionally, adivasi communities had no king or central ruling authority,
but today they yearn for liberation from the dominant forces in society
that enslave and demean them. He interprets Jesus Christ as the
Liberator, “the voice of the voiceless” and the bringer of freedom: “Jesus
Christ, the persecuted and the mutilated one, demonstrates his solidarity
with the suffering Adivasis, instilling hope that their daily ‘death’ by
exploitation will turn into liberation, if they follow his praxis.” 153 In
traditional Sarna dharm154 mythology, the horse is a symbol of “hostility,
power, anti-life, and disharmony”; and Minj proposes in response that
“Jesus Christ Liberator conquers the horse. A construal of Jesus as the
highest, the noblest, and the best horse tamer, the one who forces the
horse to acknowledge his Sonship, seems relevant.”155 The images of
Jesus as High Priest (pahan) and as Healer/Exorcist (deonra) also speak
powerfully to adivasi society. In the Sarna dharm, the pahan offers
sacrifices of animals or food to propitiate God, to establish harmony,
and to gain protection from evil. The pahan also offers sacrifices to
spirits. Minj interprets Jesus “as the highest pahan,” citing the Letter to
the Hebrews.156 There is an adivasi myth where God dies in disguise of
a leprous boy to abolish sins; Minj suggests that Jesus transforms this
myth and presents a new vision of salvation.157
Exorcism is an important aspect of adivasi religiosity. Exorcists
(deonras) protect from evil spirits, but these powerful figures can also
do harm and thus are feared. Jesus as the divine exorcist is “a new kind
of deonra.”158 Indian society has long stigmatized the adivasis; Jesus’
touching of the sick and the “untouchables” in his society (Mk. 1:31,
1:41, 5:38–41, 8:22–25, 10:3; Lk. 6:19) is a very moving image for
adivasis. 159 Minj concludes that the image of Jesus Christ as
Paramadivasi, including the four roles of Ancestor, Liberator, Priest, and
Healer, can effectively convey the gospel to the adivasi community.160
End Notes
1 Government of India, 1958-2001), LXIV:326.
Cf. Aloysius Pieris, Fire and Water: Basic Issues in Asian Buddhism and
Christianity (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1966), 66.
2 Cf. M. D. David, ed. Asia and Christianity (Bombay: Himalaya Publishing
House, 1985), 9.
3 Cf. Muriel Orevillo-Montenegro, The Jesus of Asian Women (Maryknoll,
New York: Orbis Books, 2006), 11.
4 Pieris, Fire and Water: Basic Issues in Asian Buddhism and Christianity, 66.
5 Aloysius Pieris, An Asian Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis
Books, 1988), 39.
6 For a detailed view on Hindu view of Jesus Christ refer to Samuel George,
“The Significance of the Historical Particularity of Jesus: A Response to the
Neo-Hindu View that Historicity of Jesus is Irrelevant but His Teachings are
Important.” Doctor of Theology, Senate of Serampore College (University),
India, 2010.
7 M. M. Thomas, The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance, Indian
Theological Library, No. 4 (Madras: CLS, 1976), 122, 331.
8 Ibid., 155.
9 Robin H. S. Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology (New Delhi:
ISPCK, 1994), 19-20.
10
Stanley J. Samartha, Hindu Response to Unbound Christ (Madras: CLS,
1974), 20.
11 Ram Mohan Roy, Second Appeal to the Christian Public in Defence of ‘The
Precepts of Jesus’ (Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1821), 12.
12 Ibid., 19.
13 Cited in Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, 22.
14
M. Thomas Thangaraj, The Crucified Guru: An Experiment in Cross-Cultural
Christology (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 71.
15 Samartha, Hindu Response to Unbound Christ, 35.
16 Quoted in Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, 24.
17 The Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company,
1987), s.v. “Mohandas Gandhi.”
18 E. Stanley Jones, Mahatma Gandhi: An Interpretation (Lucknow: Lucknow
Publishing House, 1948), 71.
19 B. Joseph Francis, “The Unpremeditated Communication Strategies Evolved
By Mahatma Gandhi And What They Reveal To The Genuine Evangelizer,”
Indian Theological Studies 41 (2004): 339.
20 Margaret Chatterjee, Gandhi’s Religious Thought, Library of Philosophy and
Religion (London: The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1983), 54.
21 Jones, Mahatma Gandhi: An Interpretation, 70.
22 Margaret Chatterjee, “Gandhi and Christianity,” in Gandhi’s Significance for
Today, ed. John Hick and Lamont C. Hempel (London: The Macmillan Press
Ltd, 1989), 153.
23 Ibid., 154.
24 B. Joseph Francis, “Gandhian Methodology of Means to Achieve an Aim and
its Application to Evangelization,” Indian Theological Studies 35 (1998): 221-
247; B. Joseph Francis, Love in the Life and Works of Mahatama Gandhi
(New Delhi/Bangalore: Sterling Publishers/St. Peter’s Pontifical Institute of
Theology, 1991).
25 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi
(Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
26
Ibid., IV:4; XXXV:326,328.
27 Ibid., XL:58.
88 Christology Christological Reflections from India 89

28 In a letter to Rev. M. Wells Branch, May 12, 1919, Bombay. Ibid., XV:304- 53 Ibid., 99, 111.
305. 54 Orevillo-Montenegro, The Jesus of Asian Women, 24.
29 K. L. S. Rao, “Mahatma Gandhi and Christianity,” in Neo-Hindu Views of 55 For a detailed view of his theology, refer to P. T. Thomas, The Theology of
Christianity ed. Arvind Sharma (Leiden/New York/København/Köln: E. J. Brill, Chakkarai, Confessing the Faith in India Series - No. 2 (Bangalore: CISRS,
1988), 143. 1968).
30 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, The Story of My Experiment with Truth 56 Vengal Chakkarai, “The Historical Jesus and the Christ of Experience,” in
(Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 2002), 33. Readings in Indian Christian Theology, ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah and Cecil
31 Rao, “Mahatma Gandhi and Christianity,” 143. Hargreaves (Delhi: ISPCK, 2009), 79.
32 Ibid., 145. 57 Ibid., 82.
33 Gandhi, The Story of My Experiment with Truth, 136. 58 Ibid.
34 Ibid., 63-64. 59 Orevillo-Montenegro, The Jesus of Asian Women, 25.
35 M. K. Gandhi, The Message of Jesus Christ, ed. Anand T. Hingorani (Bombay: 60 Cf. A. J. Appasamy, Christianity as Bhakti Marga: A Study of the Johannine
Bharatiya Vidhya Bhawan, 1963), 8. Doctrine of Love (Madras: CLS, 1928); A. J. Appasamy, What is Moksa? A
36 Gandhi, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, XXXV:464. Study in the Johannine Doctrine of Love (Madras: CLS, 1931); A. J. Appasamy,
37 Ibid., XLVIII:438. The Gospel and India’s Heritage (London: SPCK, 1942); A. J. Appasamy,
38 Ibid., XXXIV:261. “Messengers of Christ Today,” in Presenting Christ to India today: Three
39 M. K. Gandhi, Young India, May 12, 1920. Addresses and a Sermon delivered to the Synod of the C. S. I (Tiruchirapalli:
40 M. K. Gandhi, Young India, January 19, 1921. C. S. I, 1956).
41 M. K. Gandhi, Young India, December, 31, 1931. 61 Appasamy, The Gospel and India’s Heritage, 259.
42 M. K. Gandhi, Harijan, April 28, 1946. 62 For a detailed study refer Robin H. S. Boyd, “The Philosophical Context of
43 M. K. Gandhi, Harijan, June 30, 1946. Indian Christian Theology with Special Reference to P. Chenchiah,” in Indian
44 M. K. Gandhi, Harijan, December 7, 1947. Voices in Today’s Theological Debate, ed. Horst Burkle and Wolfang M. W.
45 A commonly used term among the Hindus as a synonym for god. Gandhi Roth (Lucknow: Lucknow Publishing House, 1972), 47-69; P. Chenchiah,
used the word Harijan (people of God) for the untouchables. Upadhyaya “The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World. A Review of Dr. Kraemer’s
uses it in a similar sense. Book,” in Rethinking Christianity in India, ed. G. V. Job and et al (Madras: A. N.
46 Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, 78. Sudarisanam, 1938); P. Chenchiah, “The Vedanta Philosophy and the Message
47 Ibid., 80. of Christ,” Indian Journal of Theology 4, no. 2 (December, 1955): 18-23; D. A.
48 Gita IV, 7:8. Thangasamy, The Theology of Chenchiah With Selections from his Writings,
49 M. M. Thomas, “Indian Theology,” in Dictionary of Mission: Theology, ed. Karl Confessing Faith in India Series No. 1 (Bangalore: CISRS, 1966); D. A.
Müller (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1997), 206. Thangasamy, “Significance of Chenchiah and His Thought,” Religion and
50 Animananda cited in Martin Jarrett-Kerr, Patterns of Christian Acceptance: Society X, no. 3 (September 1963): 27-35; P. Chenchiah, “Wherein Lies the
Individual Response to the Missionary Impact 1550-1950 (London: Oxford Uniqueness of Christ? An Indian Christian View,” in Readings in Indian Christian
University Press, 1972), 219. Theology, ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah and Cecil Hargreaves (Delhi: ISPCK, 1929),
51 Cf. Orevillo-Montenegro, The Jesus of Asian Women, 24. Refer for a detailed 83-92. Also a very good work on Chenchiah, O. V. Jathanna, The
study on Upadhyaya Julius Lipner and George Gispert-Sauch, eds., The Decisiveness of the Christ-event and the Universality of Christianity in a
Writings of Brahmabandhab Upadhyay, vol. 1 & 2 (Bangalore: The United World of Religious Plurality: With Special Reference to Hendrick Kraemer
Theological College, 1991); Julius J. Lipner, Brahmabandhab Upadhyay. The and Alfred Geroge Hogg as well as to William Ernest Hocking and Pandipeddi
Life and Thought of a Revolutionary (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, Chenchiah (Berne, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1981).
1999); Julius J. Lipner, “Brahmabandhab Upadhyay (1861-1907) and His 63 Chenchiah, “Wherein Lies the Uniqueness of Christ? An Indian Christian
Significance for Our Times,” Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection 71, View,” 83.
no. 3 (May 2007): 165-184; Timothy C. Tennent, Building Christianity on 64 Ibid., 90.
Indian Foundations: The Legacy of Brahmabandhav Upadhyay (New Delhi: 65 Ibid., 92.
ISPCK, 2000); Philip Benjamin Thomas, “The Use of Saccidananda, Avatara 66 Inclusivism holds that religions may have some sparks of God’s revelation
and Moksha for the Interpretation of the Doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, only because the Christ of Christianity operates secretly in them. Cf. Orevillo-
and Salvation With Special Reference to Brahmabandhab Upadhyay, Vengal Montenegro, The Jesus of Asian Women, 27.
Chakkarai, and Aiyadurai Jesudasan Appasamy” (Doctor of Philosophy, 67 An inclination to evaluate reality exclusively in terms of human values. Cf.
Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000); Brahmabandhab Upadhyay, Ibid.
“Christ’s Claim to Attention,” Journal of Indian Theology 1, no. 1 (January- 68 Chenchiah, “Wherein Lies the Uniqueness of Christ? An Indian Christian
April 2008): 5-8. View,” 89.
52 Thomas, The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance, 109-10. 69 Orevillo-Montenegro, The Jesus of Asian Women, 28.
90 Christology
70 For a detailed view refer Paul D. Devanandan, “The India We Live In,” in
Presenting Christ to India today: Three Addresses and a Sermon delivered
to the Synod of the C. S. I (Tiruchirapalli: C. S. I, 1956), 1-26; Paul D.
Devanandan, The Gospel and Renascent Hinduism, IMC Research
Pamphlets No. 8 (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1959); Paul D. Devanandan,
Christian Concern in Hinduism (Bangalore: CISRS, 1961); Paul D.
Devanandan, Preparation for Dialogue (Bangalore: CISRS, 1964); Paul D.
Devanandan, “Called to Witness,” NCCR LXXXII, no. 1 (January 1962): 29-
39; S. J. Samartha and Nalini Devanandan, eds., I Will Lift Up Mine Eyes Unto
The Hills: Sermons and Bible Studies of P. D. Devanandan (Bangalore: CISRS,
1963); Joachim Wietzke, ed. Paul D. Devanandan: A Selection (Madras: CLS,
1983).
71 Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, 186.
72 Ibid., 187.
73 Ibid., 187-88.
74 Wietzke, ed. Paul D. Devanandan: A Selection, 105.
75 Ibid., 107.
76 Devanandan, Christian Concern in Hinduism, 91.
77 Devanandan, Preparation for Dialogue, 166.
78 M. M. Thomas, Salvation and Humanisation: Some Crucial Issues of the
Theology of Mission in India (Madras: CLS, 1971); M. M. Thomas, Man and
the Universe of Faiths (Madras: Christian Literature Service, 1975); Thomas,
The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance; M. M. Thomas, “The
Secular Ideologies of India and the Secular Meaning of Christ,” in Readings
in Indian Christian Theology, ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah and Cecil Hargreaves
(Delhi: ISPCK, 2009); M. M. Thomas, “Christology and Pluralistic
Consciousness,” in International Bulletin of Missionary Research (July 1986);
M. M. Thomas, “Christ-Centred Syncretism,” Religion and Society XXVI, no.
1 (March 1979): 26-35; M. M. Thomas, “Indian Christian Theology, The Church
and The People,” Religion and Society XXX, no. 3&4 (Sept.-Dec. 1983): 72-
75; M. M. Thomas and P. T. Thomas, Towards an Indian Christian Theology:
Life and Thought of Some Pioneers (Tiruvalla: New Day Publications, 1992).
79 Thomas, “The Secular Ideologies of India and the Secular Meaning of Christ,”
93.
80 Ibid., 99, 100.
81 Raimundo Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an
Ecumenical Christophany, Revised and enlarged ed. (Bangalore: Asian
Trading Corporation, 1982).
82 Samartha, Hindu Response to Unbound Christ,
83 Rahner said, “Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the
grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted
Christianity… Let us say, a Buddhist monk… who, because he follows his
conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say
that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that
there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that
simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I
hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same
time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized
Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up
this postulate of an anonymous Christianity.” Paul Imhof and Hubert Biallowons,
Christological Reflections from India 91
eds., Karl Rahner in Dialogue: Conversations and Interviews, 1965-1982
(New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1988), 135. For a good appraisal
of Rahner’s ‘Anonymous Christianity’ cf. Gavin D’Costa, “Karl Rahner’s
Anonymous Christian - A Reappraisal,” Modern Theology 1, no. 2 (January
1985): 131-148.
84 Thomas, The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance,
85 M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake: Towards an Ecumenical
Theology of Pluralism (Geneva/Thiruvalla: WCC/CSS, 1987), 115.
86 Thomas, “The Secular Ideologies of India and the Secular Meaning of Christ,”
98-99.
87 Cf. M. M. Thomas, Some Theological Dialogues (Madras: CLS, 1977), 42-65.
88 Ibid., 107-8.
89 Cf. A. P. Nirmal, “Towards a Christian Dalit Theology,” in Frontiers in Asians
Christian Theology : Emerging Trends, ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah (Maryknoll,
New York: Orbis, 1994).
90 Cf. Adrian Bird, M. M. Thomas and Dalit Theology (Bangalore: BTESSC,
2008).
91 Cf. Sebastian Kappen, Jesus and Freedom (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis
Books, 1977); Sebastian Kappen, Jesus and Cultural Revolution: An Asian
Perspective (Bombay: A Build Publication, 1983); Sebastian Kappen, “Towards
an Indian Theology of Liberation,” in Readings in Indian Christian Theology,
ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah and Cecil Hargreaves (Delhi: ISPCK, 2009), 24-36;
Sebastian Kappen, “Jesus and Transculturation,” in Asian Faces of Jesus,
ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1993), 173-88.
92 Kappen, Jesus and Freedom, 31-51.
93 Kappen, “Towards an Indian Theology of Liberation,” 30.
94 Cf. Kappen, “Jesus and Transculturation,” 173 ff.
95 Kappen, Jesus and Freedom, 130.
96 Kappen, “Jesus and Transculturation,” 184, 185.
97 Kalagara Subba Rao, The Outpouring of My Heart, ed. C. D. Airan, trans., C.
D. Airan (Guntur, Andhra Pradesh: Shrimanthy Parripati Sita Mahalakshmi
Satya Narayan, 1964); Kalagara Subba Rao, Three Letters: Become Christ,
Don’t Pray, Man Created God (Hyderabad: Hyderabad Reception Committee,
1965); Kalagara Subba Rao, Retreat Padre, Second ed. (Machilipatnam: n.
p., 1972); Kalagara Subba Rao, Gurudev, Where Can I Get So Many Mill-
Stones? (Munipalle: n. p., n. d.); Kalagara Subba Rao, Translations of the
New Songs (n. p.: Vijayawada, n. d.). A good work on Subba Rao, Richard
Leroy Hivner Jr., “Exploring the Depths of the Mystery of Christ: The Life and
Work of K. Subba Rao of Andhra Pradesh, South India, with Special Reference
to His Songs” (University of South Africa, 2004). Also K. P. Aleaz, Christian
Thought Through Advaita Vedanta, ISPCK Contextual Theological Education
Series, 001 (New Delhi: ISPCK, 1996), 45-62.
98 Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, 274.
99 C. D. Airan, K. Subba Rao, the Mystic of Munipalle (Secunderabad: n. p.,
n.d.), 159.
100 Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, 275.
101 Rao, Translations of the New Songs, 20. Quoted in Boyd, An Introduction to
Indian Christian Theology, 273.
102 Kaj Baago, The Movement Around Subba Rao: A Study of the Hindu-Christian
Movement around K. Subba Rao in Andhra Pradesh (Madras: CLS, 1968),
92 Christology Christological Reflections from India 93

17. 131 An interesting work from a Mizo perspective is L. H. Lalpekhlua, Contextual

103 Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, 276. Christology: A Tribal Perspective (Delhi: ISPCK, 2007). Lalpekhlua attempts
104 Thomas, Salvation and Humanisation: Some Crucial Issues of the Theology to recover some liberating tribal concepts by reinterpreting the significance
of Mission in India, 40. of Jesus Christ, using a Mizo conceptual framework of pasaltha. He argues
105 Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, 278. that Jesus’ life and ministry, His incarnation, His suffering and His death, can
106 James Massey, Towards Dalit Hermeneutics (Delhi: ISPCK, 1994), 1. all be seen in Mizo context as manifesting the principle of tlawmngaihna,
107 Arvind P. Nirmal, Heuristic Explorations (Madras: The Christian Literature which is an essential characteristics of pasaltha. Jesus’ resurrection and
Society, 1990), 139. exaltation can be seen as God’s response to Jesus’ person and work precisely
108 Sathianathan Clarke, “Dalit Theology: An Introductory and Interpretive as pasaltha-tlawmngai. Similarly the kingdom of God, which defined and
Theological Exposition,” in Dalit Theology in the Twenty-First Century: summed up Jesus’ message and mission, can be perceived among tribal
Discordant Voices, Discerning Pathways, ed. Sathianathan Clarke, Christians as exhibiting the qualities of a communitarian society.
Deenabandhu Manchala, and Philip Vinod Peacock (New Delhi: Oxford 132 An interesting Christological dialogue from north-east India tribal context is:
University Press, 2010), 19. Visakuolie Vakha, “Jesus Christ in Tribal Theology: A Critique,” in Perspectives
109 Kothapalli Wilson, The Twice-Alienated: Culture of Dalit Christians (Hyderabad: : Current Issues in Theological Thinking, ed. Akheto Sumi (Mokokchung:
Booklinks Cooperation, 1982), 59. Jongshinokdang Trust, CTC, 2002), 64-81; A. Wati Longchar, “Jesus Christ
110 Arvind P. Nirmal, “Doing Theology from a Dalit Perspective,” in A Reader in in Tribal Theology: A Critique - A Response,” Journal of Tribal Studies VII, no.
Dalit Theology, ed. Arvind P. Nirmal (Chennai: Gurukul Lutheran Theological 2 (July-December 2003): 249-89.
College and Research Institute, 1991), 143. 133 Dr. Yangkahao Vashum teaches indigenous/tribal theology at Eastern
111 M. E. Prabhakar, “The Search for a Dalit Theology,” ibid., 47. Theological College, Jorhat.
112 Arvind P. Nirmal, “Doing Theology from a Dalit Perspective,” ibid., 142-43. 134 Yangkahao Vashum, “Emerging Vision of Indigenous/Tribal Theology,” in Dalit
113 Methodologically traditional Indian Christian theologies were inclined towards - Tribal Theological Interface: Current Trends in Subaltern Theologies, ed.
Hindu Brahmanic traditions. James Massey and Shimreingam Shimray (Jorhat & New Delhi: Tribal Study
114 Prabhakar, “The Search for a Dalit Theology,” 47. Centre/Women Study Centre & Centre for Dalit/Subaltern Studies, 2007),
115 Peniel Rajkumar, Dalit Theology and Dalit Liberation: Problems, Paradigms 40-1.
and Possibilities (Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2010), 51. 135 Ibid., 42.
116 M. E. Prabhakar, “Christology in Dalit Perspective,” in Frontiers in Dalit 136 Ibid.
Theology, ed. V. Devasahayam (New Delhi & Chennai: ISPCK & Gurukul, 137 Ibid., 43.
1997), 402. 138 Yangkahao Vashum, “Jesus Christ as the Ancestor and Elder Brother:
117 Cf. Ibid., 402-32. Constructing a Relevant Indigenous/Tribal Christology of North East India,”
118 Nirmal, “Towards a Christian Dalit Theology,” 63. in Tribal Theology: A Reader, ed. Shimreingam Shimray (Jorhat, Assam:
119 Prabhakar, “Christology in Dalit Perspective,” 414-20. Tribal Study Centre, ETC, 2008), 21-2.
120 Nirmal, “Towards a Christian Dalit Theology,” 225. 139 Ibid., 30.
121 Ibid., 227. 140 Ibid., 30-1.
122 Ibid. 141 Ibid., 31.
123 Rajkumar, Dalit Theology and Dalit Liberation: Problems, Paradigms and 142 Ibid.
Possibilities, 115. 143 Ibid., 31-2.
124 Ibid. 144 Joseph Marianus Kujur, “Indigenous Peoples: Their Identity and Struggle,” in
125 Ibid., 115-26. Taking Text to Context: A Festschrift in Honor of Fr. T. K. John, S. J. on the
126 www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/.../workshop_data_background.docý Occasion of his 75th Birth Anniversary, ed. George Keerankeri and V. P.
(accessed May 22, 2013). Srivastava (Delhi: ISPCK & Vidyajyoti College of Theology, 2011), 223-24.
127 Wati Longchar, “Tribes in Northeast India,” in The Oxford Encyclopaedia of 145 Ibid., 226.
South Asian Christianity, ed. Roger E. Hedlund (New Delhi: Oxford University 146 Leo D. Lefebure, “Catholics on the Margins in India: Dalits and Adivasis,”
Press, 2012), 698. Claritas: Journal of Dialogue & Culture 2, no. 1 (March 2013): 41.
128 Wati Longchar, “Tribal Theology: Development, Issues and Challenges,” 147 Joseph Marianus Kujur, “Adivasi Theology,” in The Oxford Encyclopaedia of
Journal of Tribal Studies XVII, no. 1 (January-June 2012): 2. South Asian Christianity, ed. Roger E. Hedlund (New Delhi: Oxford University
129 Niraml Minz and Wati Longchar, “Tribal Christian Theology/Theologizing,” in Press, 2012).
The Oxford Encyclopaedia of South Asian Christianity, ed. Roger E. Hedlund 148 A good work on Adivasi theology is Hippoletus Toppo, Towards an Adivasi
(New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2012), 695. Liberative Theology: A Critique of Liberative Praxis with Special References
130 Hukato N. Shohe, “Imaging Christ from Tribal Perspective,” in Tribal Voice, ed. to S. Rayan, S. Kappen and M. M. Thomas (Rome: Pontificia Universitas
V. Anshely Sumi (Dimapur: Aloino Centre, 2007), 31. Urbaniana, Facultas Theologiae, 2009). Few thoughts are also found in
94 Christology

Leonard Fernando and G. Gispert-Sauch, Christianity in India: Two

Thousand Years of Faith (New Delhi: Penguin, 2004), 192-9. Also Jhakmak
Neeraj Ekka, “Indigenous Christian Theology: Questions and Directions in
Making,” Bangalore Theological Forum XXXIX, no. 1 (June 2007): 102-25.
149 Kujur, “Adivasi Theology,” 6.
150 Ibid.
151 Francis Minj, “Jesus Christ Paramâdivâsi: An Indian Âdivâsi Construal of Jesus
Christ,” in Jesus of Galilee: Contextual Christology for the 21st Century, ed.
Robert Lassalle-Klein (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2011), 189-90.
152 Ibid., 191.
153 Ibid., 194.
154 The religious beliefs held by tribes in the state of Jharkhand.
155 Minj, “Jesus Christ Paramâdivâsi: An Indian Âdivâsi Construal of Jesus Christ,”
195.
156 Ibid., 196.
157 Ibid., 197.
158 Ibid., 198.
159 Ibid., 199.
160 Lefebure, “Catholics on the Margins in India: Dalits and Adivasis,” 42.
 Emerging Christologies from the Margins 95

CHAPTER IX

Emerging Christologies from the Margins

Latin American Liberation Context

Twentieth century gave rise to a very important theological formulation:
Latin American Liberation Theology, also known as ‘theology of
liberation,’ or simply ‘liberation theology.’1 It was developed primarily
among the Roman Catholic theologians and clergy, but over the years it
has influenced the Christendom in a very tangible manner. It seeks to
view all of theology and Church practice through a contextual lens –
that is, through ‘the eyes of the poor’ in Latin America; thus, it is a theology
which both critical and reality-based. “Because the theology of liberation
is a Christian theology, it is thoroughly Christological” writes Bohache.2
The three major themes of liberation theology are: preferential option
for the poor; the political situation as ‘sin’; and centrality of the reign of
God.
Over the years liberation theologians have developed an elaborate
Christological structure.3 In the following section, we present a general
view of liberation Christology.

A Christology of Liberation
There are two important things that one notice in liberation Christology:
first, the ecclesial setting of this Christology (in the Church) and its
praxis (among the people) differentiate it from Christologies that are
more theoretical. Second, it employs the same information about Jesus
as classical Christology, but interprets it differently. Instead of
spiritualizing Christ in Jesus, it gives the ‘facts’ about Jesus a material
interpretation in order to arrive at ways of seeing the Christ and his
salvific power not only in the human Jesus but in every person.4
Liberation Christology is rooted in historical Jesus and in the
people’s pain, because the decision to follow Jesus must give rise to
praxis.5 It is also suspicious of Christology that is mediated by the church,
because they compare it to what they see as the ‘ignoring’ of Christ’s
96 Christology
values by Christians.6 Traditional Christology in Latin America has failed
for the following reasons: Christ was presented as (1) an abstraction, (2)
as universal reconciliation, and (3) as absolute rather than dialectical.
An abstract Christ cannot be meaningful to the suffering communities;
universality is meaningless without a sense of particularity; and,
emphasis on the absoluteness of Christ leads to the maintaining of the
absoluteness of status quo, resulting in a deepening of the hopelessness
that is already felt by most of the Latin American people.7
Liberation Christology (ies) is not a monolithic Christology but there
are several common emphases in the various Christologies.
Commonalities in Liberation Christologies:8
• God in Christ enters into utmost solidarity with the poor.
• The sin that keeps people in bondage and the salvation that
frees them have both personal and political dimensions.
• When Christology is done self-consciously in a situation of
oppression, it becomes imperative and urgent to distinguish
faith from dehumanizing ideologies.
• Christology is inseparably linked to Christian praxis.
There is a stress on the historical Jesus over the Christ of faith for the
following reasons:9
• There is a structural similarity between the situation of Jesus’
day and those in our own time. It sees objective oppression
and dependence lived out subjectively as contrary to God’s
historical design.
• Historical Jesus puts us in direct contact with his liberative
program and the practices with which he implements it.
• Historical Jesus sheds light on the chief elements of
Christological faith: i.e., following his life and his cause in our
Christian life.
• Historical Jesus reveals the Father and how to reach that Father.
Abstract reflection (theory) does not provide us that access.
• Historical Jesus fosters a critique of humanity and society as
they appear historically. The historical Jesus signifies a crisis,
not a justification, for the world. He calls for a transformation
rather than an explanation.
Christology from Afro-American/Black Context
Christology from the perspective of the black especially from African
American context is known as Black Christology. These approaches
address Christology in light of the challenges faced by people of African
descent. The defining context of African-American, or black Christology
Emerging Christologies from the Margins 97
is race.10 It developed within the discipline of black theology, which
arose in the 1960s as a religious response to the white racism against
black Americans.11
Black theology was first articulated by James Cone (1938 - ).12 He
was of the opinion that traditional Christian theology had been complicit
in perpetuating a white supremacist theology that continued to enslave
the blacks in America. He argued that a black theology is the only hope
for improving the plight of black Americans by means of the Christian
gospel.13 He further states that a theology can be ‘Christian’ only when
it is liberative, for Christ Jesus was involved in liberation of all people.14
Cone also says, “Any statement that divorces salvation from liberation
or makes human freedom independent of divine freedom must be
rejected.”15 Sin of racism is the ‘original sin of America,’16 and Jesus
Christ came to liberate blacks from racism.17 He opines that Christian
theological exposition has been the prerogative of the whites in the
West, and unfortunately Christianity has justified black suffering.
Black theology is related to the idea of liberation. James Cone,
defines liberation as working so, “that the community of the oppressed
will recognize that its inner thrust for liberation is not only consistent with
the gospel but is the gospel of Jesus Christ.”18 Starting point of black
Christology is black experience.
Black Christ
It was in 1963, Malcolm X who asserted, “Christ wasn’t white. Christ was
a black man.”19 However, it was in 1968, the first treatise on Black Christ
came out. 20 Unlike other black Christological formulations which
articulates Christ’s blackness in metaphorical terms, Cleage argues
that Jesus was historically and ethnically black. He saw his blackness
as literal, resulting from black blood that the Israelites had acquired
during their sojourn in Egypt.21 The Synoptic Gospels portrayed a black
Jesus whose radical message was then ‘spiritualized’ by the apostle
Paul, who ‘modified his teachings to conform to the pagan white
gentiles.’22 Recent studies have suggested that there may be some
truths in Cleage’s assertion, even though it sounds to be ‘controversial.’
In contrast to Cleage, Cone favours a metaphorical approach to
black Christ.23 He likes to base his Christology on the ‘historical Jesus’ –
the ‘one who he was.’24 Parallels can be drawn and comparisons made
between Jesus’ context and the contemporary situation of the oppressed
black. For Cone, the most important characteristic of the historical Jesus
is his identification with the poor of his time, and therefore he is able to
interpret Jesus’ solidarity with the poor and oppressed Christologically
98 Christology
as the hermeneutical key for imaging Jesus as black. Cone writes, “If he
is not black as we are, then the resurrection has little significance for our
times. Indeed, he cannot be what we are, we cannot be who he is.”25
Cone writes,
The authenticity of the New Testament Jesus guarantees the
integrity of his human presence with the poor and the wretched
in the struggle for freedom. In Jesus’ presence with the poor in
Palestine, he disclosed who they were and what they were
created to be (Heb. 2:17-18). Likewise, we today can lay claim
on the same humanity that was liberated through Jesus’ cross
and resurrection. Because Jesus lived, we now know that
servitude is inhuman, and that Christ has set us free to live as
liberated sons and daughters of God. Unless Jesus was truly
like us, then we have no reason to believe that our true humanity
is disclosed in his person. Without Jesus’ humanity constituted
in real history, we have not basis to contend that his coming
bestows upon us the courage and the wisdom to struggle against
injustice and oppression.26
Cone further says, “Because human liberation is God’s work of salvation
in Jesus Christ, its source and meaning cannot be separated from
Christology’s sources (Scripture, tradition, and social existence) and
content (Jesus in his past, present, and future).”27 Jesus Christ, therefore,
in his humanity and divinity, is the point of departure for a black
theologian’s analysis of the meaning of liberation. This can be said of
any theology of liberation also. There is no liberation independent of
Jesus’ past, present and future coming.28 He is the ground for freedom
to struggle in the present context and also the source of hope that the
vision disclosed in the historical fight against oppression will be fully
realized in God’s future.
God in Jesus Christ wills to be in relation to creatures in their social
context thereby fulfilling their humanity. Cone calls this “God is free to be
for us.”29 God in Jesus Christ calls the helpless and weak into a newly
created existence. God not only fights for them but takes their humiliated
condition upon the divine Person and thereby breaks open a new future
for the poor, different from their past and present miseries.30 Jesus
becomes the ground of their liberation.
Womanist Christology
Womanist/Feminist theology
Patriarchy’s delimiting position of women both in the society and religious
spheres have raised fundamental questions about women and
Christology. Many womanist theologians have expressed discomfort
with the “maleness” of Jesus, since maleness is often used to justify
Emerging Christologies from the Margins 99
oppression. Womanist theologians point to “slave-holding Christianity,”
which saw no contradiction in following Christ and at the same time
“owning” people and treating them as inferior creatures. They point to
both whites and coloured, who followed a patriarchal Jesus and see no
contradiction in segregation and even in the exclusion of women in
their own churches. They also point to the many coloured women today
who have become victims of the male-defined/designed welfare system
that renders them powerless.31
There are diverse Christologies among women doing Christology.
“Women of colour have sought to differentiate their theological thinking
from that of white, middle-class feminists” write Bohache.32 Women’s
movements since the 1970s have argued that their voices too to be
included in any theorizing. Apparently white feminist theologizing was
not inclusive of all the voices. There was an increasing demand to include
the voices and views of women from the Two-Third World.33 Poverty,
multiple oppression, and tokenism are common experience of Third
World women folks. The Third world is a cross-ridden universe of
economic, political, and religio-cultural oppressions within which
universe of economic, political, and religio-cultural oppressions within
which women are doubly or triply burdened.34
Fabella and Oduyoye defines the methodology of womanist
theologies:
A key requisite of our methodology is that our reflections are
done by Third World women ourselves. Our theology must speak
of our struggles and the faith that empowers us. … [It] goes
beyond the personal to encompass the community, and beyond
gender to embrace humanity in its integrity. … [It] takes
cognizance of academic studies but insists on the wider spectrum
of women’s experience and reality for its inspirations and insights.
… [It] has embraced the religio-cultural besides the socio-
economic [context] and has engaged it in a living dialogue. …, it
is a dialogue of life which forms part of our daily experience.
Theologizing in the light of our Christian faith, we have learned to
appreciate the insights and spirituality of other faiths and seek
avenues for interfaith dialogue, not just to enrich Christian
theology but as a community responsibility owed to all people of
faith.
Liberation of all men and women from whatever binds them, both
internally and externally is the focus and goal of womanist theologies.
Christian womanist theological methodology needs to be informed by
at least four elements: (1) a multi-dialogical intent, (2) a liturgical intent,
(3) a didactic intent, and (4) a commitment both to reason and to the
validity of female imagery and metaphorical language in the construction
100 Christology
of theological statements.35
Christologies of Women of Colour
Coloured women around the world doing Christology is called womanist
Christology. For our purpose, we focus on the Asian context. Asian
context is very unique: it is the context of diversity, colonial past, poverty,
multi-religiosity, caste, and culture. Christ is one among the many christs
in Asia. Asian women’s Christology therefore, emerges out of the creative
tension between religious-cultural and Western imperialism. Women
makes up one quarter of world’s population; majority of them live in
abject poverty in Asia.
Womanist Christology in the Asian context takes into account the
patriarchal, racial, casteist, and economic oppression along with cruelty
of ‘sex tourism.’ These women of colour uses an ‘epistemology of the
broken body’ to understand the nature of God, the nature of humanity
and, ultimately, the nature of Christ; their brokenness, pain and suffering
cannot be extracted from their theological pursuits because it is such an
integral part of their social location, which is ‘the major element of their
life experiences.’36 God in Jesus Christ is defined by their existential
experiences: God is found in community, in nature and in history; God is
a life-giving Spirit – an all-inclusive reality who returns Asian women to
their personal power.37 This God in Jesus Christ talks to Asian women,
listens to their story, and weeps with them. This God in Jesus Christ
makes them aware of the dangers of sex tourism, neo-colonialism,
militarism, poverty, casteism, Christian superiority and triumphalism.
Womanist Christology thus is a stand against every demeaning and
oppressive structures that refuse to acknowledge the equal participation
of men and women in all aspects of life and religiosity. Kyung rightly
points out: “In Asian women’s perspective, knowledge of self leads to a
knowledge of God. In their suffering, Asian women meet God, who in
turn discloses that they were created in the divine image, full and equal
participants in the community with men.”38
Even among Womanist theologians there are diverse natures of
Christologies.39 The suffering of Jesus and its relation to the suffering of
women is of prime importance for womanist Christologies. Jesus is not
seen as a passive victim but sees his suffering as an inevitable product
of oppression. His suffering is an act of solidarity with all who suffer: Like
Jesus’ suffering, women’s suffering too has salvific value.40 Asian
womanist Christologies reject traditional Christologies as they have
projected and propagated a colonial Christology. Jesus was presented
as the ‘Lord of all.’ These were done at a time of domination by the rulers
Emerging Christologies from the Margins 101
and probably to justify it.41
In the Indian context some womanist theologians have portrayed
Jesus as the feminine principle embodied in a man; he incarnated Shakti,
the harmonious principle uniting dualism.42 In the context of Korean
Minjung theology, Jesus is seen as a priest of or shaman. People are in
the grip of han (negative energy in the universe that oppresses people)
and Jesus as a shaman (they are mostly women, therefore, it is a feminine
Christological image) undo the han and restore humanity to peace and
tranquillity. Chung reinterprets the understanding of ‘Suffering Servant’
from a womanist perspective. Jesus’ self-respect remained intact even
in the midst of suffering, this leads the womanist to reclaim the lost
ground of their self-respect.43 Some suggest that it was the women in
Jesus’ life who helped him to understand and embrace his role as a
suffering servant and thereby to become Christ.44
Minjung Christology
Minjung Theology is a Korean contextual theology. The tern Minjung
may be used for all those who are excluded from the elite who enjoy
prestigious positions. The Minjung are those people who have suffered
from exploitation, poverty; socio-political oppression, and cultural
repression throughout the ages. They know the pain of dehumanization.
Their lives; have been rooted in the age-old experience of suffering and
the present experience ‘of it. They have been treated as non-beings by
their rulers. Yet they have not given in but resisted the oppression of their
rulers. They have suffered for changing Korea into a’ just nation.
Byung Mu Ahn (1922-96), a Korean New Testament scholar and a
key figure in the development of Minjung (the masses, the anawim, the
ochlos, the crowd, rather than the elite) theology has explained the
importance of Christology from the Minjung’s perspective.45
Christology of the kerygma has distorted our understanding of Jesus.
He has been turned into Christ of faith/kerygma. Synoptic gospels give
a different picture of the earthly Jesus.
• Jesus is in non-stop action. He refuses to be the Messiah, the
Son of God, the pre-existent Being, the exalted Christ on a
throne, the coming Judge. He is not bound by religious norms
of his time.
• He associates and lives with the Minjung. He eats, drinks, asks
favours from them, and grants their requests. “Where there is
Jesus, there is the Minjung. And where there is the Minjung,
there is Jesus.”
The gospel image of Jesus is different from the kerygmatic Christ.
102 Christology
His agony at Gethsemane, his cry on the Cross reflects such an image.
The healing stories portrays a very important image of Jesus of the
Minjung. The Jesus who heals the sick people is not someone who
fulfils a pre-established programme. He never healed anyone voluntarily
or with some pre-plan. The request for healing always came from the
Minjung. And he obliged to the wishes of the patients. The sick too the
initiative for events to happen. His healing power, which has a functional
relation to the suffering of the Minjung, can be realized only when it is
met by the willing of the Minjung.46
Jesus is the spokesperson for the Minjung. He speaks to God on
behalf of them.
He is the Christ who is facing God from human being’s side not the
other way round. Human beings are not an abstract entity but concrete
Minjung who are suffering. Therefore the Jesus who is one with the
Minjung, facing God from their direction – he is Christ. He identifies
himself with the Minjung. He exists for no other than for the Minjung.
Is Jesus the saviour of the humankind? Salvation is not a
manufactured product given to human beings from heaven for their
liberation, but the liberation Jesus realized in the action of transforming
himself, by listening to and responding to the cry of the Minjung.
Jesus the environmentalist (Eco-theology and Christology)
Ecological crisis and Christology is an important area of study in Christian
theology. It is important to note that Jesus did not face the magnitude of
global destruction that we face today. Hill portrays an environmentalistic
picture of Jesus,
The gospel portrays Jesus as a man of the earth, a Jew devoted
to the Hebrew tradition that the earth is the Lord’s and has been
given to his people as a good gift. …. He grew up among people
who prayed: “The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the
firmament proclaims his handiwork” (Ps. 19:1).
[He] spent most of his life in a rural area known for its natural
beauty. …. His later teachings reflect his appreciation for his
Abba’s creation. Jesus uses fruit, mustard seeds, salt, the sun,
lightning, rain, fish, sheep, and other natural images to
demonstrate the presence and power of the reign of God.
In the Sermon on the Mount… Jesus points to both wildflowers
and birds as examples of how God’s love and care are extended
to creation. … [In] the parables Jesus demonstrates a
sacramental sensitivity to the revelation of God’s saving power
as discovered in sown seeds, harvests, vineyards, and flocks
of sheep. ….
Emerging Christologies from the Margins 103
…. Jesus warns that deprivation is brought about by those who
selfishly protect their riches and store up treasures. His own
simple lifestyle proclaims the lesson, “Take less and give more!”
The natural miracles, such as the walking on the water and the
calming of the storm, are symbolic of God’s power over creation.
….
The healing miracles … demonstrate God’s desire for healing
and wholeness. These stories teach that much physical and
moral wrong results from human ignorance or evil, and should
not be ascribed to a vindictive creator. In the gospels, we meet
a God who moves powerfully against all that subverts creation.
We encounter a God who intends that the resources of creation
be healed, sustained, and shared.47
The doctrine of incarnation teaches that God entered the real material
world and became a human being: “The Word became flesh, and lived
among us” (John 1:14).
John Duns Scotus (-1308) proposed that the incarnation was in
God’s plan from the beginning and represents a climatic stage of creation.
Accordingly, the divine goal for creation was to be fulfilled in the birth of
Jesus and would then move toward an ongoing re-creation of all reality
through Christ. Therefore, Christ is the creative force behind a new
creation, which is taking place now and which will reach its completion
in the end time.
Incarnation brought a new dignity for materiality. Matter is to be
valued and respected not just used and discarded. The dualism between
spiritual and material is overcome.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (-1955) maintains that matter is blessed,
and Christ is the heart and centre of the world, and continues to be
revealed through matter. The earth is the body of Christ.
For Karl Rahner, Christ is the perfect union of the material and the
spiritual. Incarnation is the point of this perfection.
The concept of Cosmic Christ place Jesus Christ in the context of
the cosmos. Paul writes, “ …he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the
fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and
things on earth” (Eph. 1:9-10). He further writes, “He is the image of the
invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven
and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones
or dominations or rulers or power – all things have been created through
him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold
together” (Col. 1:15-17). Such an understanding integrates creation and
salvation. Salvation therefore comes within history for the whole of
creation.
104 Christology Emerging Christologies from the Margins 105

9 David F. Ford and Mike Higton, eds., Jesus. Oxford Readers (London:
For Teilhard this cosmic image of Christ is in continuity with the
historical and risen Lord, who exercises a divine power within the Oxford University Press, 2009), 449-450.
10 Bohache, Christology from the Margins, 67.
universe and draws it toward its final completion and fulfilment. This 11 Kelly Brown Douglas, The Black Christ (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books,
convergence of all reality would be brought about by the power of Christ’s 1994), 6.
love.48 12 James H. Cone, Black Theology and Black Power, 20th anniversary edition
ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1969; reprint, 1983).
13 Ibid., 31.
14 Any theology that is contrary to the liberative motif is heretical. James H.
End Notes
1 Cone, God of the Oppressed, Revised ed. (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis
Berryman opines that this term was first used by Peruvian priest and theologian
Books, 1997), 36.
Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino in a talk given at Chimbote, Peru, in July 1968. 15 Ibid., 130.
Phillip Berryman, Liberation Theology: The Essential Facts About the 16 James H. Cone, ‘Theology’s Great Sin,’ plenary address at the American
Revolutionary Movement in Latin America and Beyond (Oak Park, Illinois:
Academy of Religion Annual Meeting, November 18, 2001, Denver, CO,
Meyer Stone Books, 1987), 24.
2 quoted in Bohache, Christology from the Margins, 68.
Thomas Bohache, Christology from the Margins (London: SCM Press, 2008), 17 James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis
81.
3 Books, 1970; reprint, 1993), 104-07.
For detailed study on Liberation Christology see: Leonardo Boff, Jesus Christ 18 Ibid., 1.
Liberator. A Critical Christology for Our Time, trans., Patrick Hughes, 3 ed. 19 Quoted in Douglas, The Black Christ, 1.
(Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1981); Leonardo Boff, “A Christology 20 Albert B. Cleage, Jr., The Black Messiah (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968),
Based on the Nazarene,” Voices from the Third World XXX, no. 1 (June
3. This book contains few details of the origin of the word black Christ in the
2007); José Míguez Bonino, “Who is Jesus Christ in Latin America Today?,”
American context.
in Faces of Jesus: Latin American Christologies, ed. José Míguez Bonino 21 Ibid.
(Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1984); José Míguez Bonino, ed. Faces 22 Ibid., 4.
of Jesus: Latin American Christologies (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 23 Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, 123.
1985); Carlos Bravo, “Jesus of Nazareth, Christ the Liberator,” in Systematic 24 Ibid., 119.
Theology: Perspectives from Liberation Theology, ed. Jon Sobrino and Ignacio 25 Ibid., 119-20.
Ellacuria (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1996); José M De Mesa, “Making 26 Cone, God of the Oppressed, 110.
Salvation Concrete and Jesus Real: Trends in Asian Christology,” Exchange 27 Ibid., 127.
30, no. 1 (2001); Virgilio Elizondo, Galilean Journey: The Mexican-American 28 Ibid.
Promise (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1985); Segundo Galilea, 29 Ibid., 128.
Following Jesus (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1981); Juan Luis 30 Ibid.
Segundo, The Historical Jesus of the Synoptics (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis 31 Hill, Jesus the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives, 153.
Books, 1985); Juan Luis Segundo, An Evolutionary Approach to Jesus of 32 Bohache, Christology from the Margins, 128.
Nazareth, trans., John Drury, vol. V (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 33 Some prefer to term it as Third-World context, because it reflects the quality
1988); Juan Luis Segundo, “Christ and the Human Being,” Cross Currents
of their life rather than numerical statistics. Cf. Virginia Fabella and Mercy
36, no. 1 (Spring 1986); Jon Sobrino, Christology at the Crossroads: A Latin
Amba Oduyoye, “Introduction,” in With Passion and Compassion: Third World
American Approach, trans., John Drury (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books,
Women Doing Theology, ed. Virginia Fabella and Mercy Amba Oduyoye
1978); Jon Sobrino, Jesus in Latin America (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis
(Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1988), ix.
Books, 1987); Jon Sobrino, “Systematic Christology: Jesus Christ, the 34 Ibid., xi.
Absolute Mediator of the Reign of God,” in Systematic Theology: Perspectives 35 Delores S. Williams, “Womanist Theology: Black Women’s Voices” http://
from Liberation Theology, ed. Jon Sobrino and Ignacio Ellacuria (Maryknoll,
www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=445 (accessed March 26,
New York: Orbis Books, 1996); Sobrino, Jesus the Liberator. A Historical-
2013).
Theological View, 36
4 Chung Hyun Kyung, Struggle to Be the Sun Again: Introducing Asian Women’s
Bohache, Christology from the Margins, 88.
5 Theology (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1990), 39.
Sobrino, Christology at the Crossroads: A Latin American Approach, xi-xii. 37
6 Bohache, Christology from the Margins, 147.
Ibid., xv. 38
7 Kyung, Struggle to Be the Sun Again: Introducing Asian Women’s Theology,
Ibid., xv-xix.
8 52.
Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, 39 For a good introduction on Asian Womanist Christologies refer to Virginia
156-158.
Fabella, “A Common Methodology for Diverse Christologies?,” in With Passion
106 Christology

and Compassion: Third World Women Doing Theology, ed. Virginia Fabella
and Mercy Amba Oduyoye (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1988), 108-
17.
40 Ibid., 110-11.
41 Kwok Pui-lan, Introducing Asian Feminist Theology (Cleveland, Ohio: The
Pilgrim Press, 2000), 80.
42 Cf. Aruna Gnanadason, “Towards a Feminist Eco-Theology for India,” in
Women Healing Earth: Third World Women on Ecology, Feminism, and
Religion, ed. Rosemary Radford Reuther (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books,
1996), 74-81; Aruna Gnanadason, “Jesus and the Asian Woman: A Post-
Colonial look at the Syro-Phoenician woman/Canaanite woman from an Indian
perspective “ Studies in World Christianity 7, no. 2 (October 2001): 162-77.
43 Kyung, Struggle to Be the Sun Again: Introducing Asian Women’s Theology,
56-7.
44 Hisako Kinukawa, Women and Jesus in Mark: A Japanese Feminist
Perspective (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1994), 141.
45 Cf. Ahn Byung-Mu, Jesus of Galilee (Korea: Dr. Ahn Byung-Mu Memorial
Service Committee, 2004); Volker Küster, “Jesus and the minjung revisited:
The Legacy of Ahn Byung-Mu (1922-1996),” Biblical Interpretation: A Journal
of Contemporary Approaches 19, no. 1 (2011): 1-18.
46 Mark mentions that Jesus could no mighty works in his native town, because
they did not believe in him.
47 Hill, Jesus the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives, 161-62.
48 Cf. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hymn of the Universe, trans., Simon
Bartholomew (New York: Harper & Row, 1965).
 Bibliography 107

Bibliography

Airan, C. D. K. Subba Rao, the Mystic of Munipalle. Secunderabad: n. p., n.d.

Aleaz, K. P. Christian Thought Through Advaita Vedanta ISPCK Contextual
Theological Education Series, 001. New Delhi: ISPCK, 1996.
Allen, R. Michael. “Calvin’s Christ: A Dogmatic Matrix for Discussion of Christ’s
Human Nature.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 9, no. 4
(2007): 382-397.
Appasamy, A. J. Christianity as Bhakti Marga: A Study of the Johannine Doctrine
of Love. Madras: CLS, 1928.
________. What is Moksa? A Study in the Johannine Doctrine of Love. Madras:
CLS, 1931.
________. The Gospel and India’s Heritage. London: SPCK, 1942.
________. “Messengers of Christ Today.” In Presenting Christ to India today:
Three Addresses and a Sermon delivered to the Synod of the C. S. I,
42-56. Tiruchirapalli: C. S. I, 1956.
The Summa Theologica. Wheaton College, Wheaton.
Baago, Kaj. The Movement Around Subba Rao: A Study of the Hindu-Christian
Movement around K. Subba Rao in Andhra Pradesh. Madras: CLS,
1968.
Baillie, D. M. God Was in Christ: An Essay on Incarnation and Atonement. New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948.
Barnes, Corey L. Christ’s Two Wills in Scholastic Thought: The Christology of
Aquinas and Its Historical Contexts. Ontario, Canada: Pontifical Institute
Mediaeval Studies, 2012.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Vol. 1, part 2. Edingburgh: T & T Clark, 1956.
________. The Epistle to the Romans. Translated by E. C. Hoskyns. 6th ed. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1968.
Behr, John. The Way to Nicaea. Vol. 1 Formation of Christian Theology. New York:
St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001.
Berryman, Phillip. Liberation Theology: The Essential Facts About the Revolutionary
Movement in Latin America and Beyond. Oak Park, Illinois: Meyer
Stone Books, 1987.
Bird, Adrian. M. M. Thomas and Dalit Theology. Bangalore: BTESSC, 2008.
108 Christology
Boff, Leonardo. Jesus Christ Liberator. A Critical Christology for Our Time.
Translated by Patrick Hughes. 3 ed. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books,
1981.
________. “A Christology Based on the Nazarene.” Voices from the Third World
XXX, no. 1 (June 2007): 21-27.
Bohache, Thomas. Christology from the Margins. London: SCM Press, 2008.
Bonino, José Míguez. “Who is Jesus Christ in Latin America Today?” In Faces of
Jesus: Latin American Christologies, edited by José Míguez Bonino,
1-6. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1984.
________, ed. Faces of Jesus: Latin American Christologies. Maryknoll, New
York: Orbis Books, 1985.
Borg, Marcus J. Jesus: A Psychological Biography. St. Louis: Chalice Press,
2000.
Boyd, Robin H. S. “The Philosophical Context of Indian Christian Theology with
Special Reference to P. Chenchiah.” In Indian Voices in Today’s
Theological Debate, edited by Horst Burkle and Wolfang M. W. Roth,
47-69. Lucknow: Lucknow Publishing House, 1972.
________. An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology. New Delhi: ISPCK, 1994.
Bravo, Carlos. “Jesus of Nazareth, Christ the Liberator.” In Systematic Theology:
Perspectives from Liberation Theology, edited by Jon Sobrino and
Ignacio Ellacuria, 106-123. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1996.
Bretscher, Paul Martin. “Luther’s Christ.” Concordia Theological Monthly 31, no.
4 (April 1, 1960): 212-214.
Brown, Robert F. “On the Necessary Imperfection of Creation: Irenaeus’ Adversus
Haereses IV, 38.” Scottish Journal of Theology 28, no. 1 (1975): 17-25.
Bucur, Bogdan G. “Revisiting Christian Oeyen: “Th e Other Clement” on Father,
Son, and the Angelomorphic Spirit.” Vigiliae Christianae, no. 61 (2007):
381-413.
Bultmann, Rudolf. Jesus and the Word. Translated by Louise Pettibone Smith
and Erminie Huntress Lantero. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1958.
Byung-Mu, Ahn. Jesus of Galilee. Korea: Dr. Ahn Byung-Mu Memorial Service
Committee, 2004.
Carpenter, H. J. “Popular Christianity and the Theologians in the Early Christianity.”
Journal of Theological Studies XIV, no. 2 (October, 1963): 294-310.
Chakkarai, Vengal. “The Historical Jesus and the Christ of Experience.” In
Readings in Indian Christian Theology, edited by R. S. Sugirtharajah
and Cecil Hargreaves, 1, 78-82. Delhi: ISPCK, 2009.
Chardin, Pierre Teilhard de. Hymn of the Universe. Translated by Simon
Bartholomew. New York: Harper & Row, 1965.
Chatterjee, Margaret. Gandhi’s Religious Thought Library of Philosophy and
Religion. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1983.
________. “Gandhi and Christianity.” In Gandhi’s Significance for Today, edited
by John Hick and Lamont C. Hempel, 152-165. London: The Macmillan
Bibliography 109
Press Ltd, 1989.
Chenchiah, P. “Wherein Lies the Uniqueness of Christ? An Indian Christian
View.” In Readings in Indian Christian Theology, edited by R. S.
Sugirtharajah and Cecil Hargreaves, 1, 83-92. Delhi: ISPCK, 1929.
________. “The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World. A Review of Dr.
Kraemer’s Book.” In Rethinking Christianity in India, edited by G. V. Job
and et al. Madras: A. N. Sudarisanam, 1938.
________. “The Vedanta Philosophy and the Message of Christ.” Indian Journal
of Theology 4, no. 2 (December, 1955): 18-23.
“Christology”, http://fromdeathtolife.org/chistory/christ1a.html (accessed June
04, 2013).
Clarke, Sathianathan. “Dalit Theology: An Introductory and Interpretive Theological
Exposition.” In Dalit Theology in the Twenty-First Century: Discordant
Voices, Discerning Pathways, edited by Sathianathan Clarke,
Deenabandhu Manchala and Philip Vinod Peacock, 19. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 2010.
Cleage, Albert B., Jr. The Black Messiah. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968.
Cone, James H. Black Theology and Black Power. 20th anniversary edition ed.
New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Reprint, 1983.
________. A Black Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books,
1970. Reprint, 1993.
________. God of the Oppressed. Revised ed. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis
Books, 1997.
D’Costa, Gavin. “Karl Rahner’s Anonymous Christian - A Reappraisal.” Modern
Theology 1, no. 2 (January 1985): 131-148.
David, M. D., ed. Asia and Christianity. Bombay: Himalaya Publishing House,
1985.
Davies, Brian. The Thought of Thomas Aquinas. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
De Mesa, José M. “Making Salvation Concrete and Jesus Real: Trends in Asian
Christology.” Exchange 30, no. 1 (2001): 1-17.
Devanandan, Paul D. “The India We Live In.” In Presenting Christ to India today:
Three Addresses and a Sermon delivered to the Synod of the C. S. I,
1-26. Tiruchirapalli: C. S. I, 1956.
________. The Gospel and Renascent Hinduism IMC Research Pamphlets No.
8. London: SCM Press Ltd, 1959.
________. Christian Concern in Hinduism. Bangalore: CISRS, 1961.
________. Preparation for Dialogue. Bangalore: CISRS, 1964.
________. “Called to Witness.” NCCR LXXXII, no. 1 (January 1962): 29-39.
Douglas, Kelly Brown. The Black Christ. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books,
1994.
Edmondson, Stephen. Calvin’s Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004.
Eisenman, Robert. James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets
110 Christology
of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Viking Penguin,
1997.
Ekka, Jhakmak Neeraj. “Indigenous Christian Theology: Questions and Directions
in Making.” Bangalore Theological Forum XXXIX, no. 1 (June 2007):
102-25.
Elizondo, Virgilio. Galilean Journey: The Mexican-American Promise. Maryknoll,
New York: Orbis Books, 1985.
Encylopedia, Catholic, “Pontius Pilate” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
12083c.htm (accessed November 11, 2012).
“Essenes”, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/193097/Essene
(accessed June 16, 2013).
Fabella, Virginia. “A Common Methodology for Diverse Christologies?” In With
Passion and Compassion: Third World Women Doing Theology, edited
by Virginia Fabella and Mercy Amba Oduyoye, 108-17. Maryknoll,
New York: Orbis Books, 1988.
Fabella, Virginia, and Mercy Amba Oduyoye. “Introduction.” In With Passion and
Compassion: Third World Women Doing Theology, edited by Virginia
Fabella and Mercy Amba Oduyoye, ix-xv. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis
Books, 1988.
Fernando, Leonard, and G. Gispert-Sauch. Christianity in India: Two Thousand
Years of Faith. New Delhi: Penguin, 2004.
Ford, David F., and Mike Higton, eds. Jesus. Oxford Readers. London: Oxford
University Press, 2009.
Fox, Robin Lane. The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible. London:
Viking, 1991.
Francis, B. Joseph. Love in the Life and Works of Mahatama Gandhi. New Delhi/
Bangalore: Sterling Publishers/St. Peter’s Pontifical Institute of Theology,
1991.
________. “Gandhian Methodology of Means to Achieve an Aim and its Application
to Evangelization.” Indian Theological Studies, no. 35 (1998): 221-247.
________. “The Unpremeditated Communication Strategies Evolved By
Mahatma Gandhi And What They Reveal To The Genuine Evangelizer.”
Indian Theological Studies, no. 41 (2004): 339-362.
Freeman, Charles. The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the
Fall of Reason. New York: Vintage Books, 2002.
Freyne, Sean. “The Geography, Politics, and Economics of Galilee and the
Quest for the Historical Jesus.” In Studying the Historical Jesus:
Evaluations of the State of Current Research, edited by Bruce Chilton
and Craig A. Evans, 75-121. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Galilea, Segundo. Following Jesus. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1981.
Gandhi, M. K. The Message of Jesus Christ, Edited by Anand T. Hingorani.
Bombay: Bharatiya Vidhya Bhawan, 1963.
Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi.
Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Bibliography 111
Government of India, 1958-2001.
________. The Story of My Experiment with Truth. Ahmedabad: Navajivan
Publishing House, 2002.
George, Samuel. “The Hypostatic Union of Jesus Christ in the Writings of Thomas
Aquinas: An Enquiry.” Bangalore Theological Forum XL, no. 1 (June
2008): 118-148.
________. “The Emergence of Christology in the Early Church: a Methodological
Survey with Particular Reference to the Anti-Heretical Polemics of
Irenaeus of Lyons.” Asia Journal of Theology 24, no. 2 (October 2010):
219-253.
Gibson, Michael, “The God Who Has Citizenship Among Us: Toward a Retrieval
of the Christology of Saint Basil of Casaerea” http://www.academia.edu/
1400583The_God_Who_Has_Citizenship_Among_Us_Toward_a_Retrieval_of_the_
Christology_of_Saint_Basil_of_Casaerea (accessed June 09, 2013).
Gilson, Etienne. The Christian Philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1994.
Gnanadason, Aruna. “Towards a Feminist Eco-Theology for India.” In Women
Healing Earth: Third World Women on Ecology, Feminism, and Religion,
edited by Rosemary Radford Reuther, 74-81. Maryknoll, New York:
Orbis Books, 1996.
________. “Jesus and the Asian Woman: A Post-Colonial look at the Syro-
Phoenician woman/Canaanite woman from an Indian perspective “
Studies in World Christianity 7, no. 2 (October 2001): 162-177.
Grant, Frederick C. The Economic Background of the Gospels. New York: Russell
& Russell, 1973 [1926].
Haanes, Vidar L. “Christological Themes in Luther’s Theology.” Studia Theologica
60, no. 1 (January 2007): 21-46.
Haight, Roger. An Alternative Vision: An Interpretation of Liberation Theology.
New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1985.
Harris, Stephen L. Understanding the Bible. Eighth ed. Colombus: McGraw-Hill
Companies, 2010.
Hayes, John H., ed. Old Testament Form Criticism. San Antonio: Trinity University,
1974.
Hefner, Philip. “St. Irenaeus and the Hypothesis of Faith.” Dialog 2, no. 4 (Fall
1963): 300-306.
Heine, Ronald E. Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church Christian
Theology in Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Hill, Brennan R. Jesus the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives. New ed. New
London, Connecticut: Twenty-Third Publications, 2006.
Hultgren, Arland J., and Steven A. Haggmark, eds. The Earliest Christian Heretics.
Readings from Their Opponents. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.
Illathuparampil, Mathew, ed. The Contemporary Theologians: Context and
Contributions. Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 2006.
112 Christology
Imhof, Paul, and Hubert Biallowons, eds. Karl Rahner in Dialogue: Conversations
and Interviews, 1965-1982. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company,
1988.
Irenaeus. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. Translated by Joseph P. Smith. Vol. 16
Ancient Christian Writers. New York: Newman Press, 1952.
________. Against the Heresies -I. Translated by Dominic J. Unger. Vol. 55
Ancient Christian Writers. New York: Paulist Press, 1992.
Jarrett-Kerr, Martin. Patterns of Christian Acceptance: Individual Response to
the Missionary Impact 1550-1950. London: Oxford University Press,
1972.
Jathanna, O. V. The Decisiveness of the Christ-event and the Universality of
Christianity in a World of Religious Plurality: With Special Reference to
Hendrick Kraemer and Alfred Geroge Hogg as well as to William
Ernest Hocking and Pandipeddi Chenchiah. Berne, Frankfurt: Peter
Lang, 1981.
Jones, E. Stanley. Mahatma Gandhi: An Interpretation. Lucknow: Lucknow
Publishing House, 1948.
Jr., Richard Leroy Hivner. “Exploring the Depths of the Mystery of Christ: The
Life and Work of K. Subba Rao of Andhra Pradesh, South India, with
Special Reference to His Songs.” University of South Africa, 2004.
Juergensmeyer, Mark, The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York:Macmillan
Publishing Company, 1987.
Kappen, Sebastian. Jesus and Freedom. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books,
1977.
________. Jesus and Cultural Revolution: An Asian Perspective. Bombay: A
Build Publication, 1983.
________. “Jesus and Transculturation.” In Asian Faces of Jesus, edited by R.
S. Sugirtharajah, 173-188. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1993.
________. “Towards an Indian Theology of Liberation.” In Readings in Indian
Christian Theology, edited by R. S. Sugirtharajah and Cecil Hargreaves,
1, 24-36. Delhi: ISPCK, 2009.
Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. Christology: A Global Introduction. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Academic, 2003.
________. Christology: A Global Introduction. An Ecumenical, International, and
Contextual Perspective. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic,
2003.
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1958.
Kindiy, Oleh. Christos Didaskalos: The Christology of Clement of Alexandria.
Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller, 2008.
Kinukawa, Hisako. Women and Jesus in Mark: A Japanese Feminist Perspective.
Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1994.
Kirsch, Jonathan. God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between
Monotheism and Polytheism. New York: Viking Compass.
Koch, Klaus. The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form-Critical Method. New
Bibliography 113
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1969.
Kujur, Joseph Marianus. “Indigenous Peoples: Their Identity and Struggle.” In
Taking Text to Context: A Festschrift in Honor of Fr. T. K. John, S. J. on
the Occasion of his 75th Birth Anniversary, edited by George
Keerankeri and V. P. Srivastava. Delhi: ISPCK & Vidyajyoti College of
Theology, 2011.
________. “Adivasi Theology.” In The Oxford Encyclopaedia of South Asian
Christianity, edited by Roger E. Hedlund, I (A-K), 6. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2012.
Küster, Volker. “Jesus and the minjung revisited: The Legacy of Ahn Byung-Mu
(1922-1996).” Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary
Approaches 19, no. 1 (2011): 1-18.
Kyung, Chung Hyun. Struggle to Be the Sun Again: Introducing Asian Women’s
Theology. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1990.
Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.
LaDue, William J. Jesus Among the Theologians: Contemporary Interpretations
of Christ. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001.
Laeuchli, Samuel. The Language of Faith. New York: Abingdon Press, 1962.
Lalpekhlua, L. H. Contextual Christology: A Tribal Perspective. Delhi: ISPCK,
2007.
Lefebure, Leo D. “Catholics on the Margins in India: Dalits and Adivasis.” Claritas:
Journal of Dialogue & Culture 2, no. 1 (March 2013): 32-49.
Lienhard, Marc. Luther, Witness to Jesus Christ: Stages and Themes in the
Reformer’s Christology. Translated by Edwin H. Robertson. Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1982.
Lipner, Julius, and George Gispert-Sauch, eds. The Writings of Brahmabandhab
Upadhyay. Vol. 1 & 2. Bangalore: The United Theological College, 1991.
Lipner, Julius J. Brahmabandhab Upadhyay. The Life and Thought of a
Revolutionary. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999.
________. “Brahmabandhab Upadhyay (1861-1907) and His Significance for
Our Times.” Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection 71, no. 3 (May
2007): 165-184.
Longchar, A. Wati. “Jesus Christ in Tribal Theology: A Critique - A Response.”
Journal of Tribal Studies VII, no. 2 (July-December 2003): 249-289.
Longchar, Wati. “Tribes in Northeast India.” In The Oxford Encyclopaedia of
South Asian Christianity, edited by Roger E. Hedlund, II (L-Z), 698.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2012.
________. “Tribal Theology: Development, Issues and Challenges.” Journal of
Tribal Studies XVII, no. 1 (January-June 2012): 1-24.
Luther, Martin, and Mitchell Tolpingrud. “Luther’s Disputation Concerning the
Divinity and Humanity of Christ.” Lutheran Quarterly 10, no. 2 (June 1,
1996): 151-178.
Macquarrie, John. Jesus Christ in Modern Thought. London: SCM Press Ltd,
114 Christology
1990.
Mariña, Jacqueline. “Christology and Anthropology in Friedrich Schleiermacher.”
In The Cambridge Companion to Friedrich Schleiermacher, edited by
Jacqueline Mariña, 151-170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2005.
Massey, James. Towards Dalit Hermeneutics. Delhi: ISPCK, 1994.
McClymond, Michael J. Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth.
Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2004.
McCormack, Bruce L. For Us and Our Salvation: Incarnation and Atonement in
the Reformed Tradition Studies in Reformed Theology and History 1.2.
Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1993.
Meier, John P. Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. New York: Doubleday
and Co., 1991.
Meyendroff, John. Christ in Eastern Christian Thought. New York: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1987.
Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian
Theology. Michigan, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1993.
Minj, Francis. “Jesus Christ Paramâdivâsi: An Indian Âdivâsi Construal of Jesus
Christ.” In Jesus of Galilee: Contextual Christology for the 21st Century,
edited by Robert Lassalle-Klein, 187-203. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis
Books, 2011.
Minz, Niraml, and Wati Longchar. “Tribal Christian Theology/Theologizing.” In
The Oxford Encyclopaedia of South Asian Christianity, edited by Roger
E. Hedlund, II (L-Z), 694-95. New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
2012.
Niebuhr, Richard R. Schleiermacher on Christ and Religion. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1964.
Nirmal, A. P. “Towards a Christian Dalit Theology.” In Frontiers in Asians Christian
Theology : Emerging Trends, edited by R. S. Sugirtharajah, 27-40.
Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1994.
Nirmal, Arvind P. Heuristic Explorations. Madras: The Christian Literature Society,
1990.
________. “Doing Theology from a Dalit Perspective.” In A Reader in Dalit
Theology, edited by Arvind P. Nirmal, 139-44. Chennai: Gurukul Lutheran
Theological College and Research Institute, 1991.
________. “Towards a Christian Dalit Theology.” In A Reader in Dalit Theology,
edited by Arvind P. Nirmal. Chennai: Gurukul Lutheran Theological
College and Research Institute, 1991.
O’Collins, Gerald. Christology. A Biblical, Historical and Systematic Study of
Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
________. Christology. A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Bibliography 115
O’Meara, Thomas F. Thomas Aquinas Theologian. Notre Dame: University of
Notre Dame Press, 1997.
O’Meara, Thomas Franklin. “Thomas Aquinas and Today’s Theology.” Theology
Today 55, no. 1 (April 1998): 46-58.
Ogden, Schubert M. “Christology Reconsidered: John Cobb’s ‘Christ in a Pluralistic
Age’.” Process Studies 6, no. 2 (Summer 1976): 116-122.
Orevillo-Montenegro, Muriel. The Jesus of Asian Women. Maryknoll, New York:
Orbis Books, 2006.
Osborn, Eric. “Irenaeus of Lyons.” In The First Christian Theologians. An
Introduction to Theology in the Early Church, edited by G. R. Evans.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004. Reprint, 2005.
Panikkar, Raimundo. The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an Ecumenical
Christophany. Revised and enlarged ed. Bangalore: Asian Trading
Corporation, 1982.
Panneberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, Michigan &
Edinburgh: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company & T & T Clark
Ltd., 1994.
Pieris, Aloysius. Fire and Water: Basic Issues in Asian Buddhism and Christianity.
Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1966.
________. An Asian Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books,
1988.
Porter, Stephen. “Swinburnian Atonement and the Doctrine of Penal Substitution.”
Faith and Philosophy 21, no. 2 (April 2004): 228-241.
Prabhakar, M. E. “The Search for a Dalit Theology.” In A Reader in Dalit Theology,
edited by Arvind P. Nirmal, 41-43. Chennai: Gurukul Lutheran
Theological College and Research Institute, 1991.
________. “Christology in Dalit Perspective.” In Frontiers in Dalit Theology, edited
by V. Devasahayam, 402-432. New Delhi & Chennai: ISPCK & Gurukul,
1997.
Pui-lan, Kwok. Introducing Asian Feminist Theology. Cleveland, Ohio: The Pilgrim
Press, 2000.
Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. Vol. III. Texas: Christian Classics, 1962.
Rajkumar, Peniel. Dalit Theology and Dalit Liberation: Problems, Paradigms and
Possibilities. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2010.
Rao, K. L. S. “Mahatma Gandhi and Christianity.” In Neo-Hindu Views of Christianity
edited by Arvind Sharma, 143-155. Leiden/New York/København/Köln:
E. J. Brill, 1988.
Rao, Kalagara Subba. The Outpouring of My Heart. Translated by C. D. Airan,
Edited by C. D. Airan. Guntur, Andhra Pradesh: Shrimanthy Parripati
Sita Mahalakshmi Satya Narayan, 1964.
________. Three Letters: Become Christ, Don’t Pray, Man Created God.
Hyderabad: Hyderabad Reception Committee, 1965.
________. Retreat Padre. Second ed. Machilipatnam: n. p., 1972.
116 Christology
________. Gurudev, Where Can I Get So Many Mill-Stones? Munipalle: n. p., n.
d.
________. Translations of the New Songs. n. p.: Vijayawada, n. d.
Reist, Irwin W. “The Christology of Irenaeus.” Journal of Evangelical Theological
Society 13, no. 4 (Fall 1970): 241-251.
Richard, Lucien J. A Kenotic Christology. Lanham, MD.: University Press of
America, 1982.
Rosin, Robert. “Reformation Christology: Some Luther Starting Points.” Concordia
Theological Quarterly 71, no. 2: 147-168.
Roy, Ram Mohan. Second Appeal to the Christian Public in Defence of ‘The
Precepts of Jesus’. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1821.
Sabra, George. “The Christological Controversies of the Fourth and Fifth
Centuries.” Bangalore Theological Forum XXXII, no. 1 (June, 2002):
77-90.
Samartha, S. J., and Nalini Devanandan, eds. I Will Lift Up Mine Eyes Unto The
Hills: Sermons and Bible Studies of P. D. Devanandan. Bangalore: CISRS,
1963.
Samartha, Stanley J. Hindu Response to Unbound Christ. Madras: CLS, 1974.
Samuel, V. C. “The Christological Controversy and the Division of the Church.” In
Orthodox Identity in India. Essays in honour of V. C. Samuel, edited by
M. K. Kuriakose. Bangalore: Rev. Dr. V. C. Samuel 75th Birthday
Celebration Committee, 1988.
________. The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined. A Historical and Theological
Survey. New Delhi: ISPCK, 2001.
Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Penguin Press, 1995.
Schaff, Philip, “The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus”, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/
anf01.html (accessed 10, July 2006).
Schweitzer, Albert. The Mystery of the Kingdom of God: The Secret of Jesus’
Messiahship and Passion. Translated by Walter Lowrie. New York:
Dodd, Mead, 1914.
________. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress
from Reimarus to Wrede. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1954.
Schweitzer, Don. Contemporary Christologies: A Fortress Introduction.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2010.
Schwöbel, Christoph. “Wolfhart Pannenberg.” In The Modern Theologians: An
Introduction to Christian Theology since 1918, edited by David F. Ford
and Rachel Muers, 129-146. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.
Segundo, Juan Luis. The Historical Jesus of the Synoptics. Maryknoll, New York:
Orbis Books, 1985.
________. An Evolutionary Approach to Jesus of Nazareth. Translated by John
Drury. Vol. V. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1988.
________. “Christ and the Human Being.” Cross Currents 36, no. 1 (Spring
Bibliography 117
1986): 39-67.
Shohe, Hukato N. “Imaging Christ from Tribal Perspective.” In Tribal Voice,
edited by V. Anshely Sumi, 30-40. Dimapur: Aloino Centre, 2007.
Sloyan, Gerard S. The Crucifixion of Jesus. History, Myth, Faith. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1995.
Sobrino, Jon. Christology at the Crossroads: A Latin American Approach.
Translated by John Drury. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1978.
________. Jesus in Latin America. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1987.
________. “Systematic Christology: Jesus Christ, the Absolute Mediator of the
Reign of God.” In Systematic Theology: Perspectives from Liberation
Theology, edited by Jon Sobrino and Ignacio Ellacuria, 124-145.
Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1996.
________. Jesus the Liberator. A Historical-Theological View. Maryknoll, New
York: Orbis Books, 2004.
Stump, Eleonore. “Atonement According to Aquinas.” In Philosophy and the
Christian Faith, edited by T.V. Morris, 61–91. Notre Dame: University of
Notre Dame Press, 1988.
________. Aquinas Arguments of the Philosophers. London: Routledge, 2003.
Swinburne, Richard. “The Christian Scheme of Salvation.” In Philosophy and the
Christian Faith, edited by Thomas V. Morris, 15-30. Notre Dame: Notre
Dame Press University Press, 1988.
________. Responsibility and Atonement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Tennent, Timothy C. Building Christianity on Indian Foundations: The Legacy of
Brahmabandhav Upadhyay. New Delhi: ISPCK, 2000.
Thangaraj, M. Thomas. The Crucified Guru: An Experiment in Cross-Cultural
Christology. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994.
Thangasamy, D. A. The Theology of Chenchiah With Selections from his Writings
Confessing Faith in India Series No. 1. Bangalore: CISRS, 1966.
________. “Significance of Chenchiah and His Thought.” Religion and Society X,
no. 3 (September 1963): 27-35.
Thomas, M. M. Salvation and Humanisation: Some Crucial Issues of the Theology
of Mission in India. Madras: CLS, 1971.
________. Man and the Universe of Faiths. Madras: Christian Literature Service,
1975.
________. The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance Indian Theological
Library, No. 4. Madras: CLS, 1976.
________. Some Theological Dialogues. Madras: CLS, 1977.
________. Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake: Towards an Ecumenical Theology of
Pluralism. Geneva/Thiruvalla: WCC/CSS, 1987.
________. “Indian Theology.” In Dictionary of Mission: Theology, edited by Karl
Müller, 206. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1997.
________. “The Secular Ideologies of India and the Secular Meaning of Christ.”
118 Christology Bibliography 119

In Readings in Indian Christian Theology, edited by R. S. Sugirtharajah
and Cecil Hargreaves, 1, 93-101. Delhi: ISPCK, 2009.
________. “Christology and Pluralistic Consciousness.” In International Bulletin
of Missionary Research, 10, 106-108, July 1986.
________. “Christ-Centred Syncretism.” Religion and Society XXVI, no. 1 (March
1979): 26-35.
Tribal Study Centre, ETC, 2008.
Wawrykow, Joseph P. “Wisdom in the Christology of Thomas Aquinas.” In
CHRIST Among the MEDIEVAL DOMINICANS. Representations of
Christ in the Texts and Images of the Orders of Preachers, edited by
Kent Emery and Joseph P. Wawrykow, 175-196. Notre Dame: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1998.

________. “Indian Christian Theology, The Church and The People.” Religion and Weaver, Walter P. The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950.
Society XXX, no. 3&4 (Sept.-Dec. 1983): 72-75. Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1999.

Thomas, M. M., and P. T. Thomas. Towards an Indian Christian Theology: Life and Wietzke, Joachim, ed. Paul D. Devanandan: A Selection. Madras: CLS, 1983.
Thought of Some Pioneers. Tiruvalla: New Day Publications, 1992. Williams, Delores S., “Womanist Theology: Black Women’s Voices” http://
Thomas, P. T. The Theology of Chakkarai Confessing the Faith in India Series - www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=445 (accessed March
No. 2. Bangalore: CISRS, 1968. 26, 2013).

Thomas, Philip Benjamin. “The Use of Saccidananda, Avatara and Moksha for Williams, Michael Allen. Rethinking “Gnosticism” An Argument for Dismantling A
the Interpretation of the Doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, and Dubious Category. Second ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
Salvation With Special Reference to Brahmabandhab Upadhyay, Vengal 1999.
Chakkarai, and Aiyadurai Jesudasan Appasamy.” Doctor of Philosophy, Wilson, Kothapalli. The Twice-Alienated: Culture of Dalit Christians. Hyderabad:
Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000. Booklinks Cooperation, 1982.
Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology. Vol. I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Wright, N. T. “No, we need history.” Christianity Today 54, no. 4 (2010): 27-28.
Press, 1951. Zachman, Randall C. “Jesus Christ as the Image of God in Calvin’s Theology.”
________. Dynamics of Faith. New York: Harper & Row, 1957. Calvin Theological Journal 25, no. 1 (1990): 45-62.
________. Systematic Theology. Vol. II. Chicago: University of Chicago University Zwanepol, Klaas. “A Human God: Some Remarks on Luther’s Christology.”
Press, 1963. Concordia Journal 30, no. 1-2 (January 1, 2004): 40-53.
Toppo, Hippoletus. Towards an Adivasi Liberative Theology: A Critique of Liberative
Praxis with Special References to S. Rayan, S. Kappen and M. M.
Thomas. Rome: Pontificia Universitas Urbaniana, Facultas Theologiae,
2009.
Trigg, Joseph W. Origen The Early Church Fathers. London: Routledge, 1998.
Tucker, Gene M. Form Criticism of the Old Testament. Guides to Biblical
Scholarship. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.
Upadhyay, Brahmabandhab. “Christ’s Claim to Attention.” Journal of Indian
Theology 1, no. 1 (January-April 2008): 5-8.
Vakha, Visakuolie. “Jesus Christ in Tribal Theology: A Critique.” In Perspectives
: Current Issues in Theological Thinking, edited by Akheto Sumi, 64-81.
Mokokchung: Jongshinokdang Trust, CTC, 2002.
Vallee, Gerard. A Study in Anti-Gnostic Polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and
Epiphanius. Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1981.
Vashum, Yangkahao. “Emerging Vision of Indigenous/Tribal Theology.” In Dalit -
Tribal Theological Interface: Current Trends in Subaltern Theologies,
edited by James Massey and Shimreingam Shimray, 16-55. Jorhat &
New Delhi: Tribal Study Centre/Women Study Centre & Centre for
Dalit/Subaltern Studies, 2007.
________. “Jesus Christ as the Ancestor and Elder Brother: Constructing a
Relevant Indigenous/Tribal Christology of North East India.” In Tribal
Theology: A Reader, edited by Shimreingam Shimray. Jorhat, Assam: